5 ms·

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

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!
        neokrish 6y ago
        IANAL but bring a lot of knowledge from a corporate structure perspective. A company is nothing but a contract that is agreed upon between a group of people. While there is a distinction between airing a company vs an individual (concept of limited liability), this isn’t the case when we are talking about fraud. Fraud exposes the board and management for charges. In this case, she was on the board and she is also the CFO. It is fair game that she is held responsible for fraud. Now who should hold her responsible for it is another question. Does US have the right to do so? I personally think so. What value would the US financial fabric have if a company HQ’d in an extra territorial jurisdiction is able to conduct fraud elsewhere, using banks that are global? How would your idea that US cannot charge the CFO extrapolate is a company is HQ’d in Cayman Islands?
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        It is quite simple how it should work and indeed how it works for literally all countries except the US. I have no issue with the CFO of the company being held criminally accountable for fraud if it is the case. However, this is not the purview of the US. It was fraud against a non-US entity outside of US jurisdiction by a non-US citizen. It should thus not be tried under US law. If the US is unhappy that they cannot apply their law abroad they are free to pull out of global trade. If it is obvious that the Cayman Islands turn a blind eye to fraud and do not prosecute fraudsters, the banks are free to stop doing business in the Cayman Islands in order to avoid having to pay for damages out of their own pockets. Otherwise, the federal government can also impose restrictions on the Cayman Island's access to the US banking system. This is a very simple truth - the US Financial system is built to enforce economic violence against various innocent entities. I have absolutely no sympathy towards maintaining it and maintaining its power over the world without the US having to be accountable to the consequences of too strict restrictions, as happens under the system as it is currently, that gives the US Government fantastic and unjustified privilege and power.
    - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
      > The insane idea is that US criminal law applies worldwide If a man in India scams a Russian or German, that should be outside the realm of Russian or German law? And then if that man travels to Russia or Germany, Russia or Germany should not be allowed to arrest him, because he was in India when the crime was committed? It takes mental gymnastics to take a series of material lies made to a bank to obtain U.S. dollar financing for the violation of U.S. sanctions in respect of American products, and brand it as extraterritoriality. The U.S. absolutely has extraterritoriality problems. This isn't one of those.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        HSBC is neither Russian nor German, even though they do business with the Russian and German economy and government.
        JumpCrisscross 6y ago
        > HSBC is neither Russian nor German And Meng isn’t Indian. It’s an analogy.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        Meng is Chinese, the analogy works perfectly. HSBC is an entity from a third-party country.
        JumpCrisscross 6y ago
        > the analogy works perfectly Correct, which is why the jurisdiction and extradition make sense. Glad we agree.
        guug 6y ago
        So you're saying that china would be completely within its rights to extradite, prosecute, and punish a US citizen who made fun of their leader on US soil if that citizen ever sets foot in a jurisdiction that has an extradition treaty with china?

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!
      - neokrish 6y ago
        IANAL but bring a lot of knowledge from a corporate structure perspective. A company is nothing but a contract that is agreed upon between a group of people. While there is a distinction between airing a company vs an individual (concept of limited liability), this isn’t the case when we are talking about fraud. Fraud exposes the board and management for charges. In this case, she was on the board and she is also the CFO. It is fair game that she is held responsible for fraud. Now who should hold her responsible for it is another question. Does US have the right to do so? I personally think so. What value would the US financial fabric have if a company HQ’d in an extra territorial jurisdiction is able to conduct fraud elsewhere, using banks that are global? How would your idea that US cannot charge the CFO extrapolate is a company is HQ’d in Cayman Islands?
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        It is quite simple how it should work and indeed how it works for literally all countries except the US. I have no issue with the CFO of the company being held criminally accountable for fraud if it is the case. However, this is not the purview of the US. It was fraud against a non-US entity outside of US jurisdiction by a non-US citizen. It should thus not be tried under US law. If the US is unhappy that they cannot apply their law abroad they are free to pull out of global trade. If it is obvious that the Cayman Islands turn a blind eye to fraud and do not prosecute fraudsters, the banks are free to stop doing business in the Cayman Islands in order to avoid having to pay for damages out of their own pockets. Otherwise, the federal government can also impose restrictions on the Cayman Island's access to the US banking system. This is a very simple truth - the US Financial system is built to enforce economic violence against various innocent entities. I have absolutely no sympathy towards maintaining it and maintaining its power over the world without the US having to be accountable to the consequences of too strict restrictions, as happens under the system as it is currently, that gives the US Government fantastic and unjustified privilege and power.
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > The insane idea is that US criminal law applies worldwide If a man in India scams a Russian or German, that should be outside the realm of Russian or German law? And then if that man travels to Russia or Germany, Russia or Germany should not be allowed to arrest him, because he was in India when the crime was committed? It takes mental gymnastics to take a series of material lies made to a bank to obtain U.S. dollar financing for the violation of U.S. sanctions in respect of American products, and brand it as extraterritoriality. The U.S. absolutely has extraterritoriality problems. This isn't one of those.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      HSBC is neither Russian nor German, even though they do business with the Russian and German economy and government.
      - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
        > HSBC is neither Russian nor German And Meng isn’t Indian. It’s an analogy.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        Meng is Chinese, the analogy works perfectly. HSBC is an entity from a third-party country.
        JumpCrisscross 6y ago
        > the analogy works perfectly Correct, which is why the jurisdiction and extradition make sense. Glad we agree.
        guug 6y ago
        So you're saying that china would be completely within its rights to extradite, prosecute, and punish a US citizen who made fun of their leader on US soil if that citizen ever sets foot in a jurisdiction that has an extradition treaty with china?