6 ms·

Meng was arrested for fraud for the claims she made to banks as part of the sale of HP servers to Iran. She knew it was illegal, so she lied to cover it up so t

Meng was arrested for fraud for the claims she made to banks as part of the sale of HP servers to Iran. She knew it was illegal, so she lied to cover it up so the banks would transfer money to Hauwei. This is the US.. fraud is a crime. If you or me went into a bank and lied to get a loan, you would get arrested too. Meng wasn't arrested for selling goods to Iran. The truth is Huawei is free to sell to Iran. But action have consequences... and if Huawei wants to sell to Iran, the US isn't going to help them do it. They can't use our banks, buy our equipment, or sell their goods here. They can make a choice: do business with Iran or do business with the US. That's their free choice to make. Huawei is upset because they want to sell to Iran, but still do business here. They don't like the consequences of their actions. They want to force the US to engage in commerce that we've decided we don't want to engage in.

chrischen 6y ago
I think that makes little practical difference. It’s like pointing a gun to one’s head and claiming they have a choice between getting shot or doing what they say.
- rgbrenner 6y ago
  Why doesn't the US have the freedom to choose what commerce they want to engage in? You have that freedom: if a company does something you don't like, you go to their competitor. You would (rightly) be outraged if the cops showed up and forced you to spend money at a company you hated.
  - drapred7 6y ago
    Why doesnt china have the freedom to choose what commerce they want to engage in? If the US didnt want the chinese selling HP servers to Iran, they should not have sold them to China. If China jailed Tim Cook for selling iPhones to Taiwan that were intended for export to Europe, the US would rightly flip out.
    - ganoushoreilly 6y ago
      China does have that freedom. The difference is, Tim Cook didn't sign any export control documents, and as of current, they don't exist. In the US the export control documents do exist, Huawei was a signatory as part of parting in the American Economy & Commercial sector. So this analogy doesn't make sense. Just as China doesn't allow Western products in their markets without a substantial consideration to China, usually in the form of joint partnerships with domestic companies vs direct sales. That's their right, the western companies wishing to engage in the market often times will find out their cost / benefit and act accordingly. All of the companies are held and managed under Chinese law and as such many have had things stripped from them.
    - adventured 6y ago
      > Why doesnt china have the freedom to choose what commerce they want to engage in? They do. Your setup is a false premise. China can flout any sanctions the US levies against other nations anytime they see fit. They also have to accept there may be consequences based on the US influence around the world. If you do commerce with China, you have to accept there may be consequences if you upset them, also. > If China jailed Tim Cook for selling iPhones to Taiwan that were intended for export to Europe, the US would rightly flip out. Taiwan is a liberal, democratic, human rights protecting nation, which is not pursuing nuclear weapons, is not threatening to commit genocide against one of its neighbors, and is not aggressively sponsoring terrorism and militias all across Asia. The Taiwan situation has nothing in common with the Iran situation. They're polar opposites, morally, culturally, politically. China may see the situation with Taiwan as comparable to how the US sees Iran, however the rest of the world does not. Nobody else actually regards Taiwan as anything other than a democratic, peaceful nation.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- AimForTheBushes 6y ago
  A rather hyperbolic comment. We don't do business with Iran- simple as that.
billfruit 6y ago
From report it looks like it was the HSBC bank which was involved, and it looks like the banking transactions was executed in Hong Kong. But it isn't an US or Canadian bank, how does the rest of the argument follow?
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > it isn't an US or Canadian bank The U.S. dollars HSBC transferred liaised HSBC’s American offices. The fraud was conducted against an American entity with respect to U.S. dollars. Bank fraud is also a crime in Canada, allowing for extradition.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    The fact that the fraud was done relating to US dollars does not give the US government sovereignty over a foreign citizen. The fraud was not conducted against an American entity, it was committed against a foreign entity with a liaison towards a US affiliate. In any reasonable world this would mean that the US affiliate would be liable for damages, then hold the mother company liable for it, which would then under local law hold the fraudster accountable for the damages.
    - washitallaway 6y ago
      You're conflating criminal law with civil law. Besides this, the US makes it's financial infrastructure available to those who play by its rules. Your argument about how dare the US seek criminal charges against those who utilize that infrastructure is completely missing the point.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        Well no, I'd have no issue with the US going after the bank then the bank going after the person who did the fraud in the jurisdiction where the fraud happened. The issue is that the US has no right to prosecute fraud that happened between non-US entities outside US borders using their own laws. I know that the US is one of the outliers of the world in that it considers that the entirety of the globe is within their criminal jurisdiction. That is an insane idea in 2020.
jiveturkey 6y ago
Far too simplistic of an analysis. > That's their free choice to make. I don't disagree with the US action here, and Huawei is as bad as it gets, but calling it a "free choice" is absurd. It's like saying, it's your free choice to not use google or facebook to advertise your consumer-facing product. It's not about it being a devil's bargain of a free choice -- there is no choice here. It's about flaunting the rules because you don't have any ethical standards, or believe yourself to be above them. And the US doesn't really care much about this specific flaunting. Bank fraud was so much the norm that it led to the 2008 housing crash. Our current president almost certainly has a lot to worry about if bank fraud means you can be detained on 3rd party foreign soil. Huawai isn't an independent actor, held accountable to international corporate standards; it is a part of the Chinese state. Meng's arrest was not a mere crime of bank fraud, but a high profile political action. That China took "reciprocal" action is enough evidence of that, regardless of any personal opinion on the matter.
thre42343 6y ago
This might be a silly question, but why on earth would China trade USD with Iran ? Then can just barter with Iranians for oil (and none would be wiser).
- exolymph 6y ago
  USD is a lot more liquid, in the financial sense, than literal oil. So maybe that's a reason to prefer it?
dingoegret 6y ago
This is the reason we need a less globalized world where dangerous regimes like the United States can't claim most of the world's commerce through imperialism then turn around and gatekeep because "its theirs"
- Apes 6y ago
  While I'm sure you're feeling pressure from the CCP to make an argument like this, I hope you at least realize your argument is largely undermined when it's made in the context of Huawei literally lying about - and trying to normalize - doing business with a dangerous regime.
  - dingoegret 6y ago
    I'm Algerian so your tinfoil hat must be malfunctioning.

chrischen 6y ago

I think that makes little practical difference. It’s like pointing a gun to one’s head and claiming they have a choice between getting shot or doing what they say.

rgbrenner 6y ago
Why doesn't the US have the freedom to choose what commerce they want to engage in? You have that freedom: if a company does something you don't like, you go to their competitor. You would (rightly) be outraged if the cops showed up and forced you to spend money at a company you hated.
- drapred7 6y ago
  Why doesnt china have the freedom to choose what commerce they want to engage in? If the US didnt want the chinese selling HP servers to Iran, they should not have sold them to China. If China jailed Tim Cook for selling iPhones to Taiwan that were intended for export to Europe, the US would rightly flip out.
  - ganoushoreilly 6y ago
    China does have that freedom. The difference is, Tim Cook didn't sign any export control documents, and as of current, they don't exist. In the US the export control documents do exist, Huawei was a signatory as part of parting in the American Economy & Commercial sector. So this analogy doesn't make sense. Just as China doesn't allow Western products in their markets without a substantial consideration to China, usually in the form of joint partnerships with domestic companies vs direct sales. That's their right, the western companies wishing to engage in the market often times will find out their cost / benefit and act accordingly. All of the companies are held and managed under Chinese law and as such many have had things stripped from them.
  - adventured 6y ago
    > Why doesnt china have the freedom to choose what commerce they want to engage in? They do. Your setup is a false premise. China can flout any sanctions the US levies against other nations anytime they see fit. They also have to accept there may be consequences based on the US influence around the world. If you do commerce with China, you have to accept there may be consequences if you upset them, also. > If China jailed Tim Cook for selling iPhones to Taiwan that were intended for export to Europe, the US would rightly flip out. Taiwan is a liberal, democratic, human rights protecting nation, which is not pursuing nuclear weapons, is not threatening to commit genocide against one of its neighbors, and is not aggressively sponsoring terrorism and militias all across Asia. The Taiwan situation has nothing in common with the Iran situation. They're polar opposites, morally, culturally, politically. China may see the situation with Taiwan as comparable to how the US sees Iran, however the rest of the world does not. Nobody else actually regards Taiwan as anything other than a democratic, peaceful nation.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
AimForTheBushes 6y ago
A rather hyperbolic comment. We don't do business with Iran- simple as that.

billfruit 6y ago

From report it looks like it was the HSBC bank which was involved, and it looks like the banking transactions was executed in Hong Kong. But it isn't an US or Canadian bank, how does the rest of the argument follow?

JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> it isn't an US or Canadian bank The U.S. dollars HSBC transferred liaised HSBC’s American offices. The fraud was conducted against an American entity with respect to U.S. dollars. Bank fraud is also a crime in Canada, allowing for extradition.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  The fact that the fraud was done relating to US dollars does not give the US government sovereignty over a foreign citizen. The fraud was not conducted against an American entity, it was committed against a foreign entity with a liaison towards a US affiliate. In any reasonable world this would mean that the US affiliate would be liable for damages, then hold the mother company liable for it, which would then under local law hold the fraudster accountable for the damages.
  - washitallaway 6y ago
    You're conflating criminal law with civil law. Besides this, the US makes it's financial infrastructure available to those who play by its rules. Your argument about how dare the US seek criminal charges against those who utilize that infrastructure is completely missing the point.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Well no, I'd have no issue with the US going after the bank then the bank going after the person who did the fraud in the jurisdiction where the fraud happened. The issue is that the US has no right to prosecute fraud that happened between non-US entities outside US borders using their own laws. I know that the US is one of the outliers of the world in that it considers that the entirety of the globe is within their criminal jurisdiction. That is an insane idea in 2020.

jiveturkey 6y ago

Far too simplistic of an analysis. > That's their free choice to make. I don't disagree with the US action here, and Huawei is as bad as it gets, but calling it a "free choice" is absurd. It's like saying, it's your free choice to not use google or facebook to advertise your consumer-facing product. It's not about it being a devil's bargain of a free choice -- there is no choice here. It's about flaunting the rules because you don't have any ethical standards, or believe yourself to be above them. And the US doesn't really care much about this specific flaunting. Bank fraud was so much the norm that it led to the 2008 housing crash. Our current president almost certainly has a lot to worry about if bank fraud means you can be detained on 3rd party foreign soil. Huawai isn't an independent actor, held accountable to international corporate standards; it is a part of the Chinese state. Meng's arrest was not a mere crime of bank fraud, but a high profile political action. That China took "reciprocal" action is enough evidence of that, regardless of any personal opinion on the matter.

thre42343 6y ago

This might be a silly question, but why on earth would China trade USD with Iran ? Then can just barter with Iranians for oil (and none would be wiser).

exolymph 6y ago
USD is a lot more liquid, in the financial sense, than literal oil. So maybe that's a reason to prefer it?

dingoegret 6y ago

This is the reason we need a less globalized world where dangerous regimes like the United States can't claim most of the world's commerce through imperialism then turn around and gatekeep because "its theirs"

Apes 6y ago
While I'm sure you're feeling pressure from the CCP to make an argument like this, I hope you at least realize your argument is largely undermined when it's made in the context of Huawei literally lying about - and trying to normalize - doing business with a dangerous regime.
- dingoegret 6y ago
  I'm Algerian so your tinfoil hat must be malfunctioning.