3 ms·

>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 bei

• 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
      You're equivocating the word "in". She allegedly committed something that is a crime in Canadian and US law, but she did not commit it in US jurisdiction, nor against a US entity. As such, there is no reason for her to be extradited to the US. I don't care that it was against the US, if it was outside of US jurisdiction then the US has no business prosecuting anyone. Just because what she did is against US interests doesn't mean that the US has the right to judge her according to their own laws. That is entirely ridiculous. As a Canadian citizen, I would feel that it would be 100% justified for her to be extradited to the jurisdiction in which she committed the alleged crime. But we aren't talking about this.
      • mthoms 6y ago
        >nor against a US entity Sigh. You didn't read the link I provided you over three hours ago, did you? C'mon, be honest :) > The Eastern District of New York charged Huawei, two of its affiliates, and Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzou with 13 counts surrounding the company’s misrepresentations to the U.S. government and four financial institutions regarding its business in Iran. The indictment charges that the company used financial institutions operating in the United States to process transactions involving millions of dollars in furtherance of Huawei’s Iran-based business. Emphasis is mine. Quote is from the link I previously provided you - https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/chinese-telecom-firm-huawei-indicted-012819 https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/chinese-telecom-firm-huawei... That page has other interesting links at the bottom you should also read. Here's a quote from one (again, all emphasis is mine). > According to the indictment, Huawei relied on its global banking relationships for banking services that included processing U.S.-dollar transactions through the United States. U.S. laws and regulations generally prohibited these banks from processing transactions related to Iran through the United States. The banks could have faced civil or criminal penalties for processing transactions that violated U.S. laws or regulations. Relying on the repeated misrepresentations by Huawei, these banks continued their banking relationships with Huawei. One bank cleared more than $100 million worth of Skycom-related transactions through the United States between 2010 and 2014. Here's the best part: > In furtherance of this scheme to defraud, and as alleged in the indictment, Huawei and its principals repeatedly lied to U.S. government authorities about Huawei’s business in Iran in submissions to the U.S. government, and in responses to government inquiries. For example, Huawei provided false information to the U.S. Congress regarding whether Huawei’s business in Iran violated any U.S. law. Similarly, as indicated in the indictment, in 2007 — months before Huawei orchestrated the purported sale of Skycom to another Huawei-controlled entity — Huawei’s founder falsely stated to FBI agents that Huawei did not have any direct dealings with Iranian companies and that Huawei operated in compliance with all U.S. export laws. And this is a series of crimes actually committed on U.S. soil: > In 2017, when Huawei became aware of the government’s investigation, Huawei and its subsidiary Huawei USA allegedly tried to obstruct the investigation by making efforts to move witnesses with knowledge about Huawei’s Iran-based business to the PRC, and beyond the jurisdiction of the U.S. government, and by concealing and destroying evidence of Huawei’s Iran-based business that was located in the United States. The above three blockquotes are from: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/chinese-telecommunications-conglomerate-huawei-and-huawei-cfo-wanzhou-meng-charged-financial https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/chinese-telecommunications-co... That just covers the Iran related part. Do you want me to go through the stolen trade secrets part? Okay sure, here goes. Once again, emphasis is mine: > According to the indictment, in 2012 Huawei began a concerted effort to steal information on a T-Mobile phone-testing robot dubbed “Tappy.” In an effort to build their own robot to test phones before they were shipped to T-Mobile and other wireless carriers, Huawei engineers violated confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements with T-Mobile by secretly taking photos of “Tappy,” taking measurements of parts of the robot, and in one instance, stealing a piece of the robot so that the Huawei engineers in China could try to replicate it. After T-Mobile discovered and interrupted these criminal activities, and then threatened to sue, Huawei produced a report falsely claiming that the theft was the work of rogue actors within the company and not a concerted effort by Huawei corporate entities in the United States and China. As emails obtained in the course of the investigation reveal, the conspiracy to steal secrets from T-Mobile was a company-wide effort involving many engineers and employees within the two charged companies. > As part of its investigation, FBI obtained emails revealing that in July 2013, Huawei offered bonuses to employees based on the value of information they stole from other companies around the world, and provided to Huawei via an encrypted email address. So, tell me again how Meng, as CFO of this wonderful company, didn't do anything against a US entity?