6 ms·

But they have everything to do with the US, that is the problem. They have multiple divisions with multiple agreements. Phone components, systems, software, all

But they have everything to do with the US, that is the problem. They have multiple divisions with multiple agreements. Phone components, systems, software, all under export controls and they aren't abiding by the agreements they have signed. I'm not sure where you're going with this. How do they have nothing to do with the US?

sudosysgen 6y ago
Then go after Huawei, which is an entity operating in the US? But that is not what happened; Huawei is not being sued, an individual that never dealt with a US entity is being sued for an alleged crime between non-US entities outside the US.
- ganoushoreilly 6y ago
  She's an elected officer of the company, and thus under US Law and most countries for the matter. She as an individual was a part of and oversaw the actions and complaints alleged. There's no ambiguity at all.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Then prosecute her under the country where she allegedly committed fraud.
- mthoms 6y ago
  >Then go after Huawei, which is an entity operating in the US? But that is not what happened; Huawei is not being sued They're not being sued, but they are being charged with: > Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, Bank Fraud, and Theft of Trade Secrets Among Nearly Two Dozen Charges https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/chinese-telecom-firm-huawei-indicted-012819 https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/chinese-telecom-firm-huawei...
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Good, then you can leave the individual non-US citizen that is outside of the US and did not commit a crime in the United States outside of US Court.
    - kube-system 6y ago
      When someone commits fraud remotely, it is often recognized in the location where the fraud occurred, not where it originated from. It doesn't matter if you're hacking a bank computer, lying through misrepresented paperwork, or any other form of fraud or remote crime. And when businesses do business internationally, their execs can be held accountable for crimes their businesses do. Here's a different but similar example: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/business/volkswagen-diesel-emissions-investigation-settlement.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/business/volkswagen-diese...
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        This is completely different. Volkswagen directly lied to the US government. And even then, Germany refused extradition for very good reasons, they had to wait for him to go to the US. This was someone allegedly defrauding an entity that is not American, let alone the US Government, outside of US jurisdiction, being deported to a jurisdiction in which they committed no crime. It is entirely ridiculous to equivocate the two cases.
        kube-system 6y ago
        Branches of HSBC inside of the US definitely operate under US law. It is illegal to defraud banks in the US. It is also illegal to defraud banks in Canada.
    - mthoms 6y ago
      She did not commit a crime in the US, correct. What she did do was come to Canada after committing what is certainly a crime in both Canada and the US. If you commit a crime elsewhere and then come to Canada, you can, and should be held accountable. Many, many criminals have been prosecuted here, or extradited from here, for crimes that weren't committed here. We're not just talking about bank fraud (that just happened to be the easiest thing to pin on her for the purpose of extradition). Huawei has long been known in intelligence circles for stealing Canadian IP as well. At the very, very least, she is complicit in such crimes. I'm glad the US is doing something about it, since we (Canada) don't have the international clout needed to stand up to Chinese bullying. Yes, she committed a crime against the US outside its' jurisdiction. She then made the mistake of coming to Canada, after having committed what would be considered a crime in Canada. Make no mistake. Aside from the sanctions violations, most of the allegations Huawei is facing also apply to Canada. She shouldn't have come here. Now she needs to face the music.

sudosysgen 6y ago

Then go after Huawei, which is an entity operating in the US? But that is not what happened; Huawei is not being sued, an individual that never dealt with a US entity is being sued for an alleged crime between non-US entities outside the US.

ganoushoreilly 6y ago
She's an elected officer of the company, and thus under US Law and most countries for the matter. She as an individual was a part of and oversaw the actions and complaints alleged. There's no ambiguity at all.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Then prosecute her under the country where she allegedly committed fraud.
mthoms 6y ago
>Then go after Huawei, which is an entity operating in the US? But that is not what happened; Huawei is not being sued They're not being sued, but they are being charged with: > Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, Bank Fraud, and Theft of Trade Secrets Among Nearly Two Dozen Charges https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/chinese-telecom-firm-huawei-indicted-012819 https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/chinese-telecom-firm-huawei...
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Good, then you can leave the individual non-US citizen that is outside of the US and did not commit a crime in the United States outside of US Court.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    When someone commits fraud remotely, it is often recognized in the location where the fraud occurred, not where it originated from. It doesn't matter if you're hacking a bank computer, lying through misrepresented paperwork, or any other form of fraud or remote crime. And when businesses do business internationally, their execs can be held accountable for crimes their businesses do. Here's a different but similar example: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/business/volkswagen-diesel-emissions-investigation-settlement.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/business/volkswagen-diese...
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      This is completely different. Volkswagen directly lied to the US government. And even then, Germany refused extradition for very good reasons, they had to wait for him to go to the US. This was someone allegedly defrauding an entity that is not American, let alone the US Government, outside of US jurisdiction, being deported to a jurisdiction in which they committed no crime. It is entirely ridiculous to equivocate the two cases.
      - kube-system 6y ago
        Branches of HSBC inside of the US definitely operate under US law. It is illegal to defraud banks in the US. It is also illegal to defraud banks in Canada.
  - mthoms 6y ago
    She did not commit a crime in the US, correct. What she did do was come to Canada after committing what is certainly a crime in both Canada and the US. If you commit a crime elsewhere and then come to Canada, you can, and should be held accountable. Many, many criminals have been prosecuted here, or extradited from here, for crimes that weren't committed here. We're not just talking about bank fraud (that just happened to be the easiest thing to pin on her for the purpose of extradition). Huawei has long been known in intelligence circles for stealing Canadian IP as well. At the very, very least, she is complicit in such crimes. I'm glad the US is doing something about it, since we (Canada) don't have the international clout needed to stand up to Chinese bullying. Yes, she committed a crime against the US outside its' jurisdiction. She then made the mistake of coming to Canada, after having committed what would be considered a crime in Canada. Make no mistake. Aside from the sanctions violations, most of the allegations Huawei is facing also apply to Canada. She shouldn't have come here. Now she needs to face the music.