6 ms·

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

by 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.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    In that case, HSBC should be held liable for damages and should sue the party in order to recover them. If they cannot recover damages in that jurisdiction then they should either stop operating there or stop operating in the US. It's pretty much indefensible to me that someone that has nothing to do with the US operating outside the US would be tried in the US for a crime they allegedly commited elsewhere.
    - mthoms 6y ago
      >In that case, HSBC should be held liable for damages I've no love for HSBC (at all) but in this instance it appears they are the victim of fraudulent representations made by Huawei. Your "solution" proposes prosecuting not only an innocent party, but one of the victims? That's an ... ummm ... interesting take.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        Well no, that is not my solution. That is the only ethical way the US could enforce sanctions. The solution would be to put the Iran deal back up, but I digress. Yes, there is absolutely no way of enforcing sanctions without prosecuting innocent parties. The only way that the US can get foreign banks not to deal with Iran is by punishing them, even if they were the victims of fraud, the bank would then have to decide if they want to continue operating in the US and try to recoup their losses by going after the fraudster, not operate in the jurisdiction of the fraudster if that is impossible, or not deal with Iran at all (in which case a competitor will). Otherwise, they can also stop dealing with the US.
        gruez 6y ago
        >even if they were the victims of fraud, the bank would then have to decide if they want to continue operating in the US and try to recoup their losses by going after the fraudster So you're proposing that the government shouldn't prosecute fraud criminally, and it should be up to the banks go after the perpetrators in civil court instead?
- frandroid 6y ago
  > I find it difficult to justify The U.S. is the hegemon. It's going to use its weight to push people around, especially if it has a chance to push China around. It did. When the 2008 financial crisis happened, some Swiss banks were in crisis and the FBI managed to finally break through Swiss bank secrecy in exchange for bailout funds (for U.S. operations). Suddenly tons of Americans hiding money in Switzerland had to make "voluntary disclosures" and pay tax. That's what being a hegemon allows you to do.
user5994461 6y ago
>>> As I understand it, it follows because HSBC and has a major US presence and is therefore subject to US banking restrictions. HSBC operates in many countries and is notably the market leader in Hong Kong and China to facilitate transfer of grey money to the West. It has little regards to US laws. Local companies only submit to their local jurisdictions (consider an international company as a lose agglomerate of local branches scattered across the world). The US can try to show off but it has little influence over what happens in the rest of the world. If any government wanted to shut down its local HSBC, they'd have done it long ago (and the officials would lose their primary ways to clear money).
- franckl 6y ago
  US extraterritorial laws are far reaching and used as way to promote US interested. Two foreign entities can be subject to them if the transaction is done in USD for exemple. https://www.natlawreview.com/article/aggressive-extraterritorial-reach-us-economic-sanctions-foreign-company-exposure-to https://www.natlawreview.com/article/aggressive-extraterrito...
  - billfruit 6y ago
    I always wondered why for example the FIFA corruption matters are being dealt with through the US justice system, while it appears hardly to have any link with the US, such that US authorities have any jurisdiction on it. That time too there was much concern over the territorial overreach of the US judicial system, esp in Europe.
- mthoms 6y ago
  I'm not sure I understand your point. Rightly or wrongly, HSBC is bound to certain US laws if it wants to maintain its US presence (including its listing on the NYSE). HSBC has made a choice to abide by that, and so they are co-operating in this matter. Sure, HSBC could choose not to abide/co-operate and face the consequences. But that's not what's happening. So, again, I'm not sure what point you're making.
  - 6y ago

by mthoms 6y ago

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.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  In that case, HSBC should be held liable for damages and should sue the party in order to recover them. If they cannot recover damages in that jurisdiction then they should either stop operating there or stop operating in the US. It's pretty much indefensible to me that someone that has nothing to do with the US operating outside the US would be tried in the US for a crime they allegedly commited elsewhere.
  - mthoms 6y ago
    >In that case, HSBC should be held liable for damages I've no love for HSBC (at all) but in this instance it appears they are the victim of fraudulent representations made by Huawei. Your "solution" proposes prosecuting not only an innocent party, but one of the victims? That's an ... ummm ... interesting take.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Well no, that is not my solution. That is the only ethical way the US could enforce sanctions. The solution would be to put the Iran deal back up, but I digress. Yes, there is absolutely no way of enforcing sanctions without prosecuting innocent parties. The only way that the US can get foreign banks not to deal with Iran is by punishing them, even if they were the victims of fraud, the bank would then have to decide if they want to continue operating in the US and try to recoup their losses by going after the fraudster, not operate in the jurisdiction of the fraudster if that is impossible, or not deal with Iran at all (in which case a competitor will). Otherwise, they can also stop dealing with the US.
      - gruez 6y ago
        >even if they were the victims of fraud, the bank would then have to decide if they want to continue operating in the US and try to recoup their losses by going after the fraudster So you're proposing that the government shouldn't prosecute fraud criminally, and it should be up to the banks go after the perpetrators in civil court instead?
frandroid 6y ago
> I find it difficult to justify The U.S. is the hegemon. It's going to use its weight to push people around, especially if it has a chance to push China around. It did. When the 2008 financial crisis happened, some Swiss banks were in crisis and the FBI managed to finally break through Swiss bank secrecy in exchange for bailout funds (for U.S. operations). Suddenly tons of Americans hiding money in Switzerland had to make "voluntary disclosures" and pay tax. That's what being a hegemon allows you to do.

user5994461 6y ago

>>> As I understand it, it follows because HSBC and has a major US presence and is therefore subject to US banking restrictions. HSBC operates in many countries and is notably the market leader in Hong Kong and China to facilitate transfer of grey money to the West. It has little regards to US laws. Local companies only submit to their local jurisdictions (consider an international company as a lose agglomerate of local branches scattered across the world). The US can try to show off but it has little influence over what happens in the rest of the world. If any government wanted to shut down its local HSBC, they'd have done it long ago (and the officials would lose their primary ways to clear money).

franckl 6y ago
US extraterritorial laws are far reaching and used as way to promote US interested. Two foreign entities can be subject to them if the transaction is done in USD for exemple. https://www.natlawreview.com/article/aggressive-extraterritorial-reach-us-economic-sanctions-foreign-company-exposure-to https://www.natlawreview.com/article/aggressive-extraterrito...
- billfruit 6y ago
  I always wondered why for example the FIFA corruption matters are being dealt with through the US justice system, while it appears hardly to have any link with the US, such that US authorities have any jurisdiction on it. That time too there was much concern over the territorial overreach of the US judicial system, esp in Europe.
mthoms 6y ago
I'm not sure I understand your point. Rightly or wrongly, HSBC is bound to certain US laws if it wants to maintain its US presence (including its listing on the NYSE). HSBC has made a choice to abide by that, and so they are co-operating in this matter. Sure, HSBC could choose not to abide/co-operate and face the consequences. But that's not what's happening. So, again, I'm not sure what point you're making.
- 6y ago