6 ms·

Huawei CFO Wanzhou Meng Admits to Misleading Global Financial Institution

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
roenxi 5y ago
The US has no business at all regulating how a Chinese company trades with an Iranian company or attempting to enforce their demands through having CFOs snatched in foreign countries.
- oriettaxx 5y ago
  the sanctions against Iran "The warrant was based on allegations that Wanzhou had cleared money that was claimed to be for Huawei, but was actually for Skycom,[34] an entity claimed to be entirely controlled by Huawei, which was said to be dealing with Iran, contrary to sanctions. According to the defence lawyer, the bank involved in the dealings was HSBC. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meng_Wanzhou#Career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meng_Wanzhou#Career
  - oriettaxx 5y ago
    "The capacity to issue sanctions that others must obey is another dimension of power, where America reigns supreme” brand new from Noam Chomsky https://www.economist.com./by-invitation/2021/09/24/noam-chomsky-on-the-cruelty-of-american-imperialism https://www.economist.com./by-invitation/2021/09/24/noam-cho...
- dzonga 5y ago
  if you use US dollars, then it's an implicit agreement to us laws. hence if you break US laws, the US will persecute you. China, Russia etc will likely be transacting in less US dollars in the future. So they don't run foul of USA sanctions
  - sschueller 5y ago
    That's why the rest of the world needs to stop using the dollar when not dealing with the US.
  - mikeblackson 5y ago
    Everyone on the planet is planning to route around the US financial system. We shot ourselves in the foot over a trade war we lost.
- _hilro 5y ago
  Did you even read the article or did you just knee-jerk type your insightful thoughts: > In December 2012 and January 2013, various news organizations, including Reuters, reported that Skycom offered to sell “embargoed” equipment from a U.S. computer equipment manufacturer in Iran in potential violation of U.S. export controls law, and that Huawei had close ties with Skycom And the outcome was pretty muted with a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (i.e. a nothing happens agreement): > Under the terms of the DPA, Meng has agreed to the accuracy of a four-page statement of facts that details the knowingly false statements she made to Financial Institution 1. Meng also has agreed not to commit other federal, state or local crimes. If Meng breaches the agreement, she will be subject to prosecution of all the charges against her in the third superseding indictment filed in this case edit: to make it more obvious, it wasn't just close ties, Huawei wholly owned Skycom via a subsidary and then tried to hide that ownership by "selling" it's shares to another company (which also was a Huawei subsidary)
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    From the Guardian: >Her lawyers argued that internal HSBC emails and memos showed she had been upfront with senior HSBC staff about Huawei’s relationship with the subsidiary accused of sanctions-busting, Skycom. Indeed, at a hearing in August, the judge in the case said that the case against Meng seemed very unusual. No one lost money, the allegations were several years old, and the intended victim, a global bank, knew the truth even as it was allegedly being lied to. Heather Holmes, associate chief justice, asked: “Isn’t it unusual that one will see a fraud case with no actual harm many years later? And one in which the alleged victim, a large institution, appears to have had numerous people within the institution who had all the facts that are now said to be misrepresented?” I don't really care about the rest. Selling US computers to Iran is not illegal where Skycom was operating. It's a travesty that the US gets to prevent people from selling things to Iran even if they are operating outside of the US. Even if Skycom was wholly owned by Huawei, the US should not get to impose their power on actions that happen solely outside of US territory. But beyond that, the entire case is clearly a political ploy by the Trump and the US administration following to extract concessions from China. Using extraterritorial "offences" to prosecute someone for purely political reasons stretches the credibility of the US legal system past it's breaking point, and morality is not even a question anymore. To be blunt, nothing of what you said even contradicts who you reply to. It amounts to taking the US government at their full word not only in facts but in spirit too.
upofadown 5y ago
The coerced confession will last right up to the point that the person in question is clear of US airspace.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- JudasGoat 5y ago
  Speaking of "coerced confessions", the 2 Michaels were immediately released.
  - throwaway210222 5y ago
    Yip, their is a rogueish honour to admitting that they were hostages and getting it over with without delay or fuss. Instead the USA has to go through all this undignified confession theatre; its beneath a country with as proud a history as theirs.
- _hilro 5y ago
  The person isn't in US airspace. They're being held in Canada and US had an ongoing extradition request with Canada. All detailed in TFA.
  - upofadown 5y ago
    It's pretty unlikely that Canada will fall for this sort of thing the second time. So once they are clear of US airspace they are pretty safe, but not entirely safe of course...
whoevercares 5y ago
Meng is returning home. 1:0
Leary 5y ago
Shame on the US for misusing the law to achieve its geopolitical objective of handicapping Huawei. Funny how HSBC, the bank that Meng supposedly defrauded, never said they were misled.
- lancesells 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei#Controversies
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    If Huawei is really so clearly in the wrong, why not go after them for things they did that actually matter instead of victimless actions that the "victim" was absolutely OK with and that happened between three non-US entities outside of the US?
    - adriancr 5y ago
      Huawei is on a trade blacklist because of breaking Iran sanctions in this case...
      - sudosysgen 5y ago
        Then fine Huawei. Oh wait, you can't, you already cut them off from the US market. Unless your argument is to start imposing US law on foreign citizens operating on foreign lands, I think you understand exactly why this is problematic.
        skzv 5y ago
        The United States considers any transaction in USD within their jurisdiction. Huawei and Iran should have been doing business in a different currency, and frankly I don't understand why they weren't.
        5y ago
a0-prw 5y ago
This "admission" is just a fig-leaf, face-saver for the US. China won this stand-off which was initiated by the US. Sent from my Huawei phone.
- ejanus 5y ago
  And Huawei is the number selling smartphone.
chriselles 5y ago
This is the BladeRunner and Rollerball(original 1975) world we increasingly live in, with corporate exchanges reminiscent of Cold War spook exchanges. Corporate senior leadership, especially in Big Tech, are moving along the continuum towards sovereign diplomatic immunity. Yesterday, power was energy/natural resource/auto manufacturing. Today, power is telecom/networking/search/social media. Tomorrow, power might be AI/quantum/longevity/space. Huawei is the fulcrum upon which much of China’s digital layer global ambitions are being built.
vegai_ 5y ago
What's the difference between Chinese patriots and American patriots? Chinese patriots think their government is the best. American patriots know that their government is the worst. The American patriots are clearly less delusional.
BXLE_1-1-BitIs1 5y ago
The DOJ asserts criminal jurisdiction over a Chinese national "defrauding" a Hong Kong bank in a meeting in Hong Kong. Hong Kong could have thrown a skunk into the extradition garden party by asserting sovereign criminal jurisdiction and requesting Meng's extradition along with investigatory files from DOJ via MLAT. The extradition hearing was proceeding under the fiction that the "criminal" act took place in Canada; however Meng's lawyers pointed out that Canadian law has no jurisdiction over conduct between foreign nationals in another country (excepting war crimes and crimes against humanity). The judge found difficulties with the DOJ case. Had the judge ruled against the DOJ, Meng could have flown back to China with the DOJ indictment hanging over her head and inhibiting foreign travel. The DPA spares her that along with maybe another decade of an ankle bracelet, security guards, and several million in legal fees. But really the DOJ had to twist a repealed Iran sanctions case that would not fly in Canada into a "bank fraud" case. Why a Canadian justice minister refused to see through that and halt extradition in January '19 and spare two innocent Canadians nearly three years in Chinese jail, I have no idea. I'm no fan of China, but they do know their way around Realpolitik hardball way, way, way better than Canada,which as a Canadian I find utterly clueless.
Digory 5y ago
If this was a US loss, how could it have shown a win? Jail?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

The US has no business at all regulating how a Chinese company trades with an Iranian company or attempting to enforce their demands through having CFOs snatched in foreign countries.

oriettaxx 5y ago
the sanctions against Iran "The warrant was based on allegations that Wanzhou had cleared money that was claimed to be for Huawei, but was actually for Skycom,[34] an entity claimed to be entirely controlled by Huawei, which was said to be dealing with Iran, contrary to sanctions. According to the defence lawyer, the bank involved in the dealings was HSBC. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meng_Wanzhou#Career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meng_Wanzhou#Career
- oriettaxx 5y ago
  "The capacity to issue sanctions that others must obey is another dimension of power, where America reigns supreme” brand new from Noam Chomsky https://www.economist.com./by-invitation/2021/09/24/noam-chomsky-on-the-cruelty-of-american-imperialism https://www.economist.com./by-invitation/2021/09/24/noam-cho...
dzonga 5y ago
if you use US dollars, then it's an implicit agreement to us laws. hence if you break US laws, the US will persecute you. China, Russia etc will likely be transacting in less US dollars in the future. So they don't run foul of USA sanctions
- sschueller 5y ago
  That's why the rest of the world needs to stop using the dollar when not dealing with the US.
- mikeblackson 5y ago
  Everyone on the planet is planning to route around the US financial system. We shot ourselves in the foot over a trade war we lost.
_hilro 5y ago
Did you even read the article or did you just knee-jerk type your insightful thoughts: > In December 2012 and January 2013, various news organizations, including Reuters, reported that Skycom offered to sell “embargoed” equipment from a U.S. computer equipment manufacturer in Iran in potential violation of U.S. export controls law, and that Huawei had close ties with Skycom And the outcome was pretty muted with a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (i.e. a nothing happens agreement): > Under the terms of the DPA, Meng has agreed to the accuracy of a four-page statement of facts that details the knowingly false statements she made to Financial Institution 1. Meng also has agreed not to commit other federal, state or local crimes. If Meng breaches the agreement, she will be subject to prosecution of all the charges against her in the third superseding indictment filed in this case edit: to make it more obvious, it wasn't just close ties, Huawei wholly owned Skycom via a subsidary and then tried to hide that ownership by "selling" it's shares to another company (which also was a Huawei subsidary)
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  From the Guardian: >Her lawyers argued that internal HSBC emails and memos showed she had been upfront with senior HSBC staff about Huawei’s relationship with the subsidiary accused of sanctions-busting, Skycom. Indeed, at a hearing in August, the judge in the case said that the case against Meng seemed very unusual. No one lost money, the allegations were several years old, and the intended victim, a global bank, knew the truth even as it was allegedly being lied to. Heather Holmes, associate chief justice, asked: “Isn’t it unusual that one will see a fraud case with no actual harm many years later? And one in which the alleged victim, a large institution, appears to have had numerous people within the institution who had all the facts that are now said to be misrepresented?” I don't really care about the rest. Selling US computers to Iran is not illegal where Skycom was operating. It's a travesty that the US gets to prevent people from selling things to Iran even if they are operating outside of the US. Even if Skycom was wholly owned by Huawei, the US should not get to impose their power on actions that happen solely outside of US territory. But beyond that, the entire case is clearly a political ploy by the Trump and the US administration following to extract concessions from China. Using extraterritorial "offences" to prosecute someone for purely political reasons stretches the credibility of the US legal system past it's breaking point, and morality is not even a question anymore. To be blunt, nothing of what you said even contradicts who you reply to. It amounts to taking the US government at their full word not only in facts but in spirit too.

upofadown 5y ago

The coerced confession will last right up to the point that the person in question is clear of US airspace.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
JudasGoat 5y ago
Speaking of "coerced confessions", the 2 Michaels were immediately released.
- throwaway210222 5y ago
  Yip, their is a rogueish honour to admitting that they were hostages and getting it over with without delay or fuss. Instead the USA has to go through all this undignified confession theatre; its beneath a country with as proud a history as theirs.
_hilro 5y ago
The person isn't in US airspace. They're being held in Canada and US had an ongoing extradition request with Canada. All detailed in TFA.
- upofadown 5y ago
  It's pretty unlikely that Canada will fall for this sort of thing the second time. So once they are clear of US airspace they are pretty safe, but not entirely safe of course...

whoevercares 5y ago

Meng is returning home. 1:0

Leary 5y ago

Shame on the US for misusing the law to achieve its geopolitical objective of handicapping Huawei. Funny how HSBC, the bank that Meng supposedly defrauded, never said they were misled.

lancesells 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei#Controversies
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  If Huawei is really so clearly in the wrong, why not go after them for things they did that actually matter instead of victimless actions that the "victim" was absolutely OK with and that happened between three non-US entities outside of the US?
  - adriancr 5y ago
    Huawei is on a trade blacklist because of breaking Iran sanctions in this case...
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      Then fine Huawei. Oh wait, you can't, you already cut them off from the US market. Unless your argument is to start imposing US law on foreign citizens operating on foreign lands, I think you understand exactly why this is problematic.
      - skzv 5y ago
        The United States considers any transaction in USD within their jurisdiction. Huawei and Iran should have been doing business in a different currency, and frankly I don't understand why they weren't.
        5y ago

a0-prw 5y ago

This "admission" is just a fig-leaf, face-saver for the US. China won this stand-off which was initiated by the US. Sent from my Huawei phone.

ejanus 5y ago
And Huawei is the number selling smartphone.

chriselles 5y ago

This is the BladeRunner and Rollerball(original 1975) world we increasingly live in, with corporate exchanges reminiscent of Cold War spook exchanges. Corporate senior leadership, especially in Big Tech, are moving along the continuum towards sovereign diplomatic immunity. Yesterday, power was energy/natural resource/auto manufacturing. Today, power is telecom/networking/search/social media. Tomorrow, power might be AI/quantum/longevity/space. Huawei is the fulcrum upon which much of China’s digital layer global ambitions are being built.

vegai_ 5y ago

What's the difference between Chinese patriots and American patriots? Chinese patriots think their government is the best. American patriots know that their government is the worst. The American patriots are clearly less delusional.

BXLE_1-1-BitIs1 5y ago

The DOJ asserts criminal jurisdiction over a Chinese national "defrauding" a Hong Kong bank in a meeting in Hong Kong. Hong Kong could have thrown a skunk into the extradition garden party by asserting sovereign criminal jurisdiction and requesting Meng's extradition along with investigatory files from DOJ via MLAT. The extradition hearing was proceeding under the fiction that the "criminal" act took place in Canada; however Meng's lawyers pointed out that Canadian law has no jurisdiction over conduct between foreign nationals in another country (excepting war crimes and crimes against humanity). The judge found difficulties with the DOJ case. Had the judge ruled against the DOJ, Meng could have flown back to China with the DOJ indictment hanging over her head and inhibiting foreign travel. The DPA spares her that along with maybe another decade of an ankle bracelet, security guards, and several million in legal fees. But really the DOJ had to twist a repealed Iran sanctions case that would not fly in Canada into a "bank fraud" case. Why a Canadian justice minister refused to see through that and halt extradition in January '19 and spare two innocent Canadians nearly three years in Chinese jail, I have no idea. I'm no fan of China, but they do know their way around Realpolitik hardball way, way, way better than Canada,which as a Canadian I find utterly clueless.

Digory 5y ago

If this was a US loss, how could it have shown a win? Jail?