7 ms·

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 C

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.
      - washitallaway 6y ago
        Since when do banks criminally charge people? Why is it an insane idea in 2020 for a country to criminally charge those who violate it's laws?
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        The insane idea is that US criminal law applies worldwide, not only on US soil. Banks do no criminally charge people, but they can go after the civil damages to recuperate their incurred costs due to the fraud and have huge power to motivate prosecutors to press charges. In some foreign countries, bank can actually go after people criminally. If the foreign country in which the bank operates will not punish the fraudster then they can pull out of that country.
        washitallaway 6y ago
        That is not atypical - countries can and should protect their interests and the interests of their citizens (see GDPR). Huawei wanted to play both sides, and by doing so, opened themselves up to these charges. They were under no obligation to use the US financial infrastructure, and only through its use did they become covered by its laws.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        This isn't about Huawei though. If they sue a company for that that's something that I would wholeheartedly support, and eventually Huawei can entirely stop operating in the US if they disagree. This is about an individual being charged and extradited to the US that is not a US citizen for a crime that happened between non-US actors outside of the US.
        haecceity 6y ago
        This thread is so interesting. I have no idea how laws work. Most people in this thread have no idea either but they're convinced Huawei or their CFO is justly condemned. It's even funnier that they can't even tell the difference between two!
  - xxpor 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 US government disagrees. And they control the banking sector because most FX transactions actually go Currency A->Dollars->Currency B. So their opinion is what matters. If you get caught selling to a sanctioned entity you'll be put on a blacklist and nearly every bank around the world will refuse to work with you. It's a financial death penalty. This is why US sanctions are so nefarious.
mthoms 6y ago
As I understand it, it follows because HSBC and has a major US presence and is therefore subject to US banking restrictions. It makes sense if you consider that the money from the sale, once it enters the HSBC system could easily flow back to the US. There's also the matter that it was American equipment being sold and Huawei would have also needed to lie to the US government when the equipment was exported. This is more difficult to get a foreign government to extradite for since there is a doctrine (at least in Canada, but I believe also in other western countries) that it would have needed to be a crime in Canada for the offence to be extraditable (Canada did not have Iran sanctions at the time). Thus, the extradition case so far has focused on the fraud of misrepresenting oneself to the bank. Certainly a crime in Canada.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Sure, but I find it difficult to justify that this should be tried in a US court under control of the US government, for a crime between two non-American actors outside the United States. The fact that it was about selling US equipment seems to be completely orthogonal to the crime (which is fraud), as it is not illegal for a non-US citizen outside the US to sell American goods bought to another non-US actor. The fact that Huawei would have to lie to the US government also seems orthogonal as Huawei did not lie to the US government, and if it did then Huawei would be liable. This simply seems to me like the US trying to impose it's power over foreign transactions.
  - mthoms 6y ago
    HSBC has a United States banking license, employs tens of thousands of Americans (in America) and is traded on the New York Stock exchange. Thus it (a) has to abide by US finance laws and (b) is afforded some US protections. If having ones head office overseas would provide immunity from US laws it wouldn't be a very effective system would it? :-) >Huawei did not lie to the US government That remains to be seen (as I understand it - maybe you have evidence to the contrary?), but I can't imagine how they would export so much equipment without doing so. >This simply seems to me like the US trying to impose it's power over foreign transactions. I agree to an extent. But since everyone (especially banks) need to do business in the United States it's unavoidable.

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.
    - washitallaway 6y ago
      Since when do banks criminally charge people? Why is it an insane idea in 2020 for a country to criminally charge those who violate it's laws?
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        The insane idea is that US criminal law applies worldwide, not only on US soil. Banks do no criminally charge people, but they can go after the civil damages to recuperate their incurred costs due to the fraud and have huge power to motivate prosecutors to press charges. In some foreign countries, bank can actually go after people criminally. If the foreign country in which the bank operates will not punish the fraudster then they can pull out of that country.
        washitallaway 6y ago
        That is not atypical - countries can and should protect their interests and the interests of their citizens (see GDPR). Huawei wanted to play both sides, and by doing so, opened themselves up to these charges. They were under no obligation to use the US financial infrastructure, and only through its use did they become covered by its laws.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        This isn't about Huawei though. If they sue a company for that that's something that I would wholeheartedly support, and eventually Huawei can entirely stop operating in the US if they disagree. This is about an individual being charged and extradited to the US that is not a US citizen for a crime that happened between non-US actors outside of the US.
        haecceity 6y ago
        This thread is so interesting. I have no idea how laws work. Most people in this thread have no idea either but they're convinced Huawei or their CFO is justly condemned. It's even funnier that they can't even tell the difference between two!
- xxpor 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 US government disagrees. And they control the banking sector because most FX transactions actually go Currency A->Dollars->Currency B. So their opinion is what matters. If you get caught selling to a sanctioned entity you'll be put on a blacklist and nearly every bank around the world will refuse to work with you. It's a financial death penalty. This is why US sanctions are so nefarious.

mthoms 6y ago

As I understand it, it follows because HSBC and has a major US presence and is therefore subject to US banking restrictions. It makes sense if you consider that the money from the sale, once it enters the HSBC system could easily flow back to the US. There's also the matter that it was American equipment being sold and Huawei would have also needed to lie to the US government when the equipment was exported. This is more difficult to get a foreign government to extradite for since there is a doctrine (at least in Canada, but I believe also in other western countries) that it would have needed to be a crime in Canada for the offence to be extraditable (Canada did not have Iran sanctions at the time). Thus, the extradition case so far has focused on the fraud of misrepresenting oneself to the bank. Certainly a crime in Canada.

sudosysgen 6y ago
Sure, but I find it difficult to justify that this should be tried in a US court under control of the US government, for a crime between two non-American actors outside the United States. The fact that it was about selling US equipment seems to be completely orthogonal to the crime (which is fraud), as it is not illegal for a non-US citizen outside the US to sell American goods bought to another non-US actor. The fact that Huawei would have to lie to the US government also seems orthogonal as Huawei did not lie to the US government, and if it did then Huawei would be liable. This simply seems to me like the US trying to impose it's power over foreign transactions.
- mthoms 6y ago
  HSBC has a United States banking license, employs tens of thousands of Americans (in America) and is traded on the New York Stock exchange. Thus it (a) has to abide by US finance laws and (b) is afforded some US protections. If having ones head office overseas would provide immunity from US laws it wouldn't be a very effective system would it? :-) >Huawei did not lie to the US government That remains to be seen (as I understand it - maybe you have evidence to the contrary?), but I can't imagine how they would export so much equipment without doing so. >This simply seems to me like the US trying to impose it's power over foreign transactions. I agree to an extent. But since everyone (especially banks) need to do business in the United States it's unavoidable.