3 ms·

She created a subsidiary company in Hong Kong, bought products made in the US and sold them to Iran. The investigation started long ago. This may just be a ca

She created a subsidiary company in Hong Kong, bought products made in the US and sold them to Iran. The investigation started long ago. This may just be a case of bad timing. Who knew that an exec of a US competitor just also happened to be corrupt? It doesn't make sense in the context of the trade deal, the better reality is that it's actually just the US locking down on people breaking the sanctions.

majia 8y ago
Based on available public information, the case happened about eight years ago, and Meng was not a top executive at Huawei. At that time there were many companies in China and elsewhere selling US products to Iran. Huawei allegedly sold about 1 million dollar goods for civilian use. The selective law enforcement in this case is rather curious: Why would the US persecute this particular case so vigorously? Extradition is not very common for crimes of this level of severity. Why would the US want to have someone physically arrested instead of to punish Huawei with fine and export ban, which are more common for companies violating sanctions? Why would the US choose to arrest the daughter of Huawei's founder, instead of someone who is more directly involved in the Iran deal? It is hard to believe this is a case of bad timing. There has been lots of infighting within the Trump administration. Most likely, the hawk fraction intentionally chose to arrest Meng at the time of Trump-Xi meeting in order to undermine a possible trade deal by embarrassing China. Think about what happens if China arrests Tim Cook because Apple didn't pay the right amount of tax in China eight years ago.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >Why would the US persecute this particular case so vigorously? Extradition is not very common for crimes of this level of severity. To send a signal "we can go tough if you don't sit back and take it on our trade terms (which have nothing to do with Iran)"
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  The case is directed at her specifically: "Meng is accused of committing fraud in 2013 by telling U.S. financial institutions that Huawei had no connection to Skycom, which was reportedly selling goods manufactured in the United States to Iran in violation of American sanctions on Tehran. Meng has contended Huawei sold Skycom in 2009." [1] As far as selective enforcement - can you give any examples? Also - even though you're probably right on some level, and I fully agree there's 'relevance' to the current situation in China, I would argue it's not acutely relevant. A lot of law enforcement doesn't happen until there's some people getting bold about it. For example, the Hells Angels get away with a lot until there is real violence, or super hardcore drugs start appearing - then the cops focus their attention more on the situation. Organized crime knows this, which is why they choose to keep the equilibrium by staying quiet, generally. Since America has general competitive concerns with China, it makes sense that a large international firm that is flagrantly violating US law would be targeted by a body in the justice system. But it doesn't mean that Trump's hawkish team is behind this as a part of the negotiations. In fact, I really don't think it's part of the negotiation, and I even bet that Trump et. al. were caught maybe off guard by it. So yes, politicized, but more in general, not acutely. Moreover, if there is law being broken it should be prosecuted, and to your point, hopefully more evenly. FYI - sometimes these things are also done to 'send a signal'. Just like if a Hells Angel dude steps out of line and maybe does something violent, and the cops rush down on all members of that chapter, it's a 'signal' to HA leadership that if they step out of line, that's what's going to happen, i.e. part of keeping the equilibrium. Otherwise, if the HA chapter got away with something, others might try as well. [1] https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/meng-wanzhou-huawei-cfo-meng-wanzhou-china-tech-executive-lied-to-evade-sanctions-on-iran-us-charges-1959592 https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/meng-wanzhou-huawei-cfo-meng...
linkregister 8y ago
Agreed, it's comforting to people to think that the universe has order and that everything has a simple explanation. But it does not. The unit of the U.S. government that started this investigation started it long ago. This is why the seemingly schizophrenic behavior of the government confounds so many people. Various leaders in agencies in the executive branch can't possibly have alternate incentives to the Commander in Chief, therefore it must be a Deep State Conspiracy. The dramatic coincidence of three airplanes crashing into buildings couldn't have been extremely lucky terrorist cells, it had to have been Bush doing 9/11. People like to consider the U.S. government as a monolith, but this is a poor model. It's more akin to a 1 million core computer, chugging away at parallel tasks, many of which generate race conditions. It may seems strange to many observers, but the President of the United States has limited power to stop federal prosecutors from doing their job. Just look at the current situation with the attorneys general and the special investigator.
coldtea 8y ago
>She created a subsidiary company in Hong Kong, bought products made in the US and sold them to Iran. Which is within their rights to do. US sanctions against Iran are not approved by UN or the EU. It's just a one-sided US whimsy. Not to mention how many times US companies sold stuff to countries that they are supposedly at odds with, including Iran. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  "US sanctions against Iran are not approved by UN or the EU." It doesn't matter. She sold US made goods to Iran, and so she broke US law. As though she assaulted a US official or something, it's not so much EU laws that matter. Also - if your example of 'US selling stuff to Iran' is the 'Iran contra affair' then maybe you made my point, because this was a massive scandal, and it's 30 years ago. If that's the extent of it, then it's not bad. Also - the sales to Iran were part of a government sanctioned geostrategic initiative, much like the sanctions in the first place. I don't consider that problematic: if the US is the one making sanctions, and the US wants to adapt those sanctions for geostrategic reasons that makes sense.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >Also - if your example of 'US selling stuff to Iran' is the 'Iran contra affair' then maybe you made my point, because this was a massive scandal, and it's 30 years ago. If that's the extent of it, then it's not bad. That's just an example, the US has played both sides anywhere they could, and armed "bad guys" since forever... As for the scandal, yeah, some scandal, Bush then became president (and then had his son become President), and Oliver North had his charges dismissed.
luddy 8y ago
There are news reports suggesting that she was arrested for arranging bank transfers from banks in the US to Iran, using false identify for the sender of the funds. The further suggestion has been made that these transfers caused several US banks to be subjected to fines under the sanctions laws of the US. The timing makes it seems as though this is all about the trade war and Chinese technology, but it sounds to me as though it is a violation of US money laundering laws, and pertains to money transfers that originated on US soil. We will see, as details emerge.

majia 8y ago

Based on available public information, the case happened about eight years ago, and Meng was not a top executive at Huawei. At that time there were many companies in China and elsewhere selling US products to Iran. Huawei allegedly sold about 1 million dollar goods for civilian use. The selective law enforcement in this case is rather curious: Why would the US persecute this particular case so vigorously? Extradition is not very common for crimes of this level of severity. Why would the US want to have someone physically arrested instead of to punish Huawei with fine and export ban, which are more common for companies violating sanctions? Why would the US choose to arrest the daughter of Huawei's founder, instead of someone who is more directly involved in the Iran deal? It is hard to believe this is a case of bad timing. There has been lots of infighting within the Trump administration. Most likely, the hawk fraction intentionally chose to arrest Meng at the time of Trump-Xi meeting in order to undermine a possible trade deal by embarrassing China. Think about what happens if China arrests Tim Cook because Apple didn't pay the right amount of tax in China eight years ago.

coldtea 8y ago
>Why would the US persecute this particular case so vigorously? Extradition is not very common for crimes of this level of severity. To send a signal "we can go tough if you don't sit back and take it on our trade terms (which have nothing to do with Iran)"
sonnyblarney 8y ago
The case is directed at her specifically: "Meng is accused of committing fraud in 2013 by telling U.S. financial institutions that Huawei had no connection to Skycom, which was reportedly selling goods manufactured in the United States to Iran in violation of American sanctions on Tehran. Meng has contended Huawei sold Skycom in 2009." [1] As far as selective enforcement - can you give any examples? Also - even though you're probably right on some level, and I fully agree there's 'relevance' to the current situation in China, I would argue it's not acutely relevant. A lot of law enforcement doesn't happen until there's some people getting bold about it. For example, the Hells Angels get away with a lot until there is real violence, or super hardcore drugs start appearing - then the cops focus their attention more on the situation. Organized crime knows this, which is why they choose to keep the equilibrium by staying quiet, generally. Since America has general competitive concerns with China, it makes sense that a large international firm that is flagrantly violating US law would be targeted by a body in the justice system. But it doesn't mean that Trump's hawkish team is behind this as a part of the negotiations. In fact, I really don't think it's part of the negotiation, and I even bet that Trump et. al. were caught maybe off guard by it. So yes, politicized, but more in general, not acutely. Moreover, if there is law being broken it should be prosecuted, and to your point, hopefully more evenly. FYI - sometimes these things are also done to 'send a signal'. Just like if a Hells Angel dude steps out of line and maybe does something violent, and the cops rush down on all members of that chapter, it's a 'signal' to HA leadership that if they step out of line, that's what's going to happen, i.e. part of keeping the equilibrium. Otherwise, if the HA chapter got away with something, others might try as well. [1] https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/meng-wanzhou-huawei-cfo-meng-wanzhou-china-tech-executive-lied-to-evade-sanctions-on-iran-us-charges-1959592 https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/meng-wanzhou-huawei-cfo-meng...

linkregister 8y ago

Agreed, it's comforting to people to think that the universe has order and that everything has a simple explanation. But it does not. The unit of the U.S. government that started this investigation started it long ago. This is why the seemingly schizophrenic behavior of the government confounds so many people. Various leaders in agencies in the executive branch can't possibly have alternate incentives to the Commander in Chief, therefore it must be a Deep State Conspiracy. The dramatic coincidence of three airplanes crashing into buildings couldn't have been extremely lucky terrorist cells, it had to have been Bush doing 9/11. People like to consider the U.S. government as a monolith, but this is a poor model. It's more akin to a 1 million core computer, chugging away at parallel tasks, many of which generate race conditions. It may seems strange to many observers, but the President of the United States has limited power to stop federal prosecutors from doing their job. Just look at the current situation with the attorneys general and the special investigator.

coldtea 8y ago

>She created a subsidiary company in Hong Kong, bought products made in the US and sold them to Iran. Which is within their rights to do. US sanctions against Iran are not approved by UN or the EU. It's just a one-sided US whimsy. Not to mention how many times US companies sold stuff to countries that they are supposedly at odds with, including Iran. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair

sonnyblarney 8y ago
"US sanctions against Iran are not approved by UN or the EU." It doesn't matter. She sold US made goods to Iran, and so she broke US law. As though she assaulted a US official or something, it's not so much EU laws that matter. Also - if your example of 'US selling stuff to Iran' is the 'Iran contra affair' then maybe you made my point, because this was a massive scandal, and it's 30 years ago. If that's the extent of it, then it's not bad. Also - the sales to Iran were part of a government sanctioned geostrategic initiative, much like the sanctions in the first place. I don't consider that problematic: if the US is the one making sanctions, and the US wants to adapt those sanctions for geostrategic reasons that makes sense.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >Also - if your example of 'US selling stuff to Iran' is the 'Iran contra affair' then maybe you made my point, because this was a massive scandal, and it's 30 years ago. If that's the extent of it, then it's not bad. That's just an example, the US has played both sides anywhere they could, and armed "bad guys" since forever... As for the scandal, yeah, some scandal, Bush then became president (and then had his son become President), and Oliver North had his charges dismissed.

luddy 8y ago

There are news reports suggesting that she was arrested for arranging bank transfers from banks in the US to Iran, using false identify for the sender of the funds. The further suggestion has been made that these transfers caused several US banks to be subjected to fines under the sanctions laws of the US. The timing makes it seems as though this is all about the trade war and Chinese technology, but it sounds to me as though it is a violation of US money laundering laws, and pertains to money transfers that originated on US soil. We will see, as details emerge.