Canada arrests Huawei's CFO, faces US extradition for violating Iran sanctions
18 replies, posted
Canada has arrested the chief financial officer of China’s Huawei Technologies who is facing extradition to the United States on suspicion she violated U.S. trade sanctions against
Iran. Wanzhou Meng, who is also the deputy chair of Huawei’s board and the daughter of company founder Ren Zhengfei, was arrested in Vancouver at the request of U.S. authorities.
“Wanzhou Meng was arrested in Vancouver on December 1. She is sought for extradition by the United States, and a bail hearing has been set for Friday,” Justice department
spokesperson Ian McLeod said in a statement to The Globe and Mail. “As there is a publication ban in effect, we cannot provide any further detail at this time. The ban was sought by
A Canadian source with knowledge of the arrest said U.S. law enforcement authorities are alleging that Ms. Meng tried to evade the U.S. trade embargo against Iran but provided no
further details.. U.S. prosecutors in New York have been investigating whether Huawei violated U.S. sanctions in relation to Iran. News of the probe broke in April 2018 when it was
reported by the Wall Street Journal.
Since at least 2016, U.S. authorities have been reviewing Huawei's alleged shipping of U.S.-origin products to Iran and other countries in violation of U.S. export and sanctions laws.
The Justice Department probe, first reported by the Wall Street Journal in April, follows a series of U.S. actions aimed at stopping or reducing access by Huawei and Chinese
smartphone maker ZTE Corp to the U.S. economy amid allegations the companies could be using their technology to spy on Americans.
The probe is reportedly being run out of the U.S. attorney’s office in Brooklyn, the sources said. However, a spokesman for the prosecutor’s office in April 2018 declined to confirm or
deny the existence of the investigation.
Ms. Meng is a rising star at Shenzhen-based Huawei, now the world’s second-largest maker of telecommunications equipment. Reuters reported in 2013 that Ms. Meng served on the
board of a Hong Kong-based Skycom Tech Co. Ltd. that later attempted to sell embargoed Hewitt Packard computer equipment to Iran’s largest mobile-phone operator.
Our actual news has been more suspenseful than any fucking political I've watched.
My dog vomited on my phone while I was driving and now the speaker sounds weird.
Eat a dick Huawei.
We're gonna extradite your dog.
The border guard said:
"I'm sorry Ms. Meng. You're going Huawei to jail."
The Iran sanctions are so stupid.
Mine entered a permanent bootloop after an update while I was driving and now it's bricked. $700 paperweight. Huawei refuses to do anything because it was 1yr and 2 months after purchase date.
Eat a dick Huawei.
Don't consumer laws impose a minimum of 2 years for phone guarantees?
"you're not allowed to trade with anyone but US"
What's the legal basis for this?
Here's hoping she gets extradited, tried, convicted and slapped in irons for the maximum sentence of what she's being charged for.
Allegedly violating US sanctions on Iran, and US and Canadian law enforcement have cooperation agreements. US police can't just rock up into Canada and expect to enforce the law (US or Canadian), but they can persuade Canadian authorities to grab people. It's typically done for prominent people who're wanted in the US or are actively committing crimes against the US.
An infamous example was the arrest of Canadian pot king (long before legalization) Marc Emery for selling mail-order cannabis seeds -- something legal within Canadian borders at the time -- to Americans and shipping them across the border. In effect, to the US, he was exporting drugs to the US from Canada, so they convinced the Canadian government to have the RCMP arrest him and extradite him to the US to face charges, which they did and he spent five years in US prison.
I did some quick reading so it may not be 100% correct, but Canadian law is apparently a lot like the US when it comes to consumer electronics warranties. It just needs to be considered "reasonable". There is no hard number. 1 year would be considered entirely "reasonable" length of time to expect a device to last without defects.
But what's the legal basis for charging her with a crime which may or may not be a crime in a.) Canada or b.) China?
I'm no legal expert but there's a near-incestual amount of cooperation by US and Canada border authorities, on account of the border between the two being very very easy to cross unless you show up to the border openly carrying a weapon or you're a documented criminal or something. The international ports of both nations, especially closer to the 49th parallel border, have a certain amount of shared interest in patrolling for persons of great interest like heads of companies violating sanctions.
The US and Canada have a very special relationship, even though it has been strained lately, because we share the longest undefended border in the world and, as different as they may seem, our cultures and legal systems are almost perfectly aligned with each other. NAFTA v1, for example, treats Canada, Mexico, and the US as "domestic" for the purposes of determining whether a good is a domestic item or a foreign import/export, and our economies are so tightly linked they're considered one in some aspects.
I'm not agreeing with it but it is what it is.
Also, selling drugs is a bad example because the US specifically charges ICE with defending the US from threats of illicit drugs and this extends to other nations' jurisdictions and gaining their cooperation, so yes hypothetically you could totally get picked up for being an international drug kingpin if you passed through any airport where the host nation cooperates with the US on its drug enforcement policies, not because you've actively sold drugs to people in the US but because you could and you're circulating drugs in general. The US war on drugs has a very broad scope of authority so you picked the wrong contraband.
Didn't some other Chinese tech giant violate the Iran sanctions and Trump intervened on their behalf, stating "JOBS"?