Meng Wanzhou`s USA offense?

[BruceK]

Maybe I should have paid more attention during Private International Law lectures, but I don`t get it.
She was arrested in transit in Canada at the request of USA,for breaching US sanctions on Iran and faces extradition to USA. How does that work?
If USA "sanctions" Iran, they can try to force other countries to follow suit by threatening to sanction them too, but what is the applicable law to charge MW, and how does it apply to a Chinese citizen.
Did she commit the offense, of what, while in USA? That might work. Are sanctions on Iran a criminal law? Are all citizens of all countries subject to US law in the US view? I want to understand how it works, at present I don`t.
Don`t think that I`m a supporter of Huawei interests, I`m not. I just want to know how the charges arise in this case, and I`m hoping someone on TF knows.

 

[menzies]

Bruce, your profile does not show us.

Where do you live?

 

[Boat]

Diplomacy moves are sometimes negotiated in advance and are not as they appear.

 

[Northern Spy]

My understanding is that she was arrested for fraud.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/meng-huawei-extradition-1.4937146

 

[BruceK]

Bruce, your profile does not show us.

Where do you live?

Menzies,it`s Sydney Australia. A little unconventional but it`s at the foot of my posts.

 

[BruceK]

NS/Mike,so maybe it`s for fraud, for "lying to bankers" as per the CBC report,rather than "not complying with US sanctions". If it occurred in USA she`d commit the offense there,that would give jurisdiction. That makes sense.
Like Al Capone was done for tax offenses, not for "gangster" conduct.
Regarding Boat`s post,indeed, but my understanding is that at the G20 meeting, the Chinese Premier knew the arrest was impending,the US representative did not. So maybe not negotiated in advance this time.

 

[Civilitas]

As I understand your question and my understanding of the issue, it is easiest to break it down into two issues:

1) Huawei was free to violate US sanctions as long as they sought no business in the US. They did not choose that route, but rather to make false presentations about their business to US regulators. According to the charges, she was central to orchestrating the fraud.

2) most civilized nations cooperate in arresting wanted individuals across borders. A Canadian citizen wanted for a serious crime would be detained in the US at Canadian request. There are unilateral treaties for this, as well as multilateral ones - usually mediated through Interpol.

If the Australians had wanted her, the Canadians (or US) would have done the same. It is really very routine.

 

[menzies]

Missed that.

Simply put, she was arrested at the request of the US.

This is the process by agreement across many countries and regions - including Europe (Interpol).

What happens next is that the US will have to come to court and defend their request for arrest and extradition. The judge will then decide if there is justification for either. That is usually based on the laws of the "arresting" country, not the requesting country.

For example, if someone violated banking laws in the US and they asked Canada to arrest and extradite him, if what he did would also have violated Canadian law then the judge would usually grant the US request.

If the US requested that the person be arrested because he violated the current US law on visiting and spending money in Cuba, there is a very good chance that the judge would not agree to the request, since that is not a law in Canada.

 

[BruceK]

Thanks Menzies. I understood why Canada effected the arrest, and the extradition proceedings. What I did not understand was the offense, it was reported here as a breach of US sanctions, hardly a criminal offense. Mike (Northern Spy) pointed me to a News report,which says the offense of fraud is alleged. Whether an offense was committed is a question for the trial,assuming of course extradition succeeds.
The politics of it are something else, but my query is answered.

 

[Delfin]

Thanks Menzies. I understood why Canada effected the arrest, and the extradition proceedings. What I did not understand was the offense, it was reported here as a breach of US sanctions, hardly a criminal offense. Mike (Northern Spy) pointed me to a News report,which says the offense of fraud is alleged. Whether an offense was committed is a question for the trial,assuming of course extradition succeeds.
The politics of it are something else, but my query is answered.

It is a violation of US law, which as had been explained to you, wouldn't matter if Huawei chooses not to do business in the US, which requires compliance with US law. Bit Huawei does, and she personally broke those laws in false statements made to US regulators, so was arrested in compliance with international standards of law. Poaching kangaroos isn't illegal in the US, but if you do it in Oz and flee to the US, the Australian government expects is to arrest and extradite you on request.

 

[Civilitas]

What I did not understand was the offense, it was reported here as a breach of US sanctions, hardly a criminal offense.

Given the elaborate nature of the fraud and misrepresentations alleged, and the material and substantial aid given to major state sponsor of terrorism, it's a quite serious criminal offense. This isn't just a bit of "creative accounting" - which is criminal, too, by the way.

And it's not merely "political," - it's a quite deadly game with a huge human toll in life each year. To imply otherwise is at best ignorant and at worst maliciously deceitful.

 

[BruceK]

Civilitas,you misunderstand. Northern Spy, helpfully and courteously,answered my enquiry,posts ago. Your arguments are interesting but irrelevant to my enquiry.

 

[menzies]

Poaching kangaroos isn't illegal in the US, but if you do it in Oz and flee to the US, the Australian government expects is to arrest and extradite you on request.

Poaching is illegal in the US, regardless of species.

Otherwise it wouldn't be poaching.

 

[BruceK]

Poaching is illegal in the US, regardless of species.

Otherwise it wouldn't be poaching.

It is an essential requirement of extradition the offense relied on be an offense in both countries. The poster you quoted so as to respond, appears quite unaware of that requirement. And that is so despite your advice to that effect in your post #8.

 

[Delfin]

Poaching is illegal in the US, regardless of species.

Otherwise it wouldn't be poaching.

And one would poach kangaroos in NA where, exactly?

 

[Delfin]

It is an essential requirement of extradition the offense relied on be an offense in both countries. The poster you quoted so as to respond, appears quite unaware of that requirement. And that is so despite your advice to that effect in your post #8.

Brilliant.

Poaching is a species and location specific crime. No Kangaroos, no poaching crime possible. No possible crime, no extradition.

But regarding your initial post, having acknowledged Spy's pointing out to you that Ms. Wanzhou is accused of banking fraud, which is illegal in both Canada and the U.S., you now seem to have forgotten that element of the situation. Maybe you don't approve of the fact that the fraud she committed was lying about her company's dealings with Iran that induced banks to violate U.S. law. Whatever, she was arrested for a crime that can be committed in both countries, is illegal in both countries, hence the request for extradition.

Perhaps this will help you sort this out, since it explains the extraditable crime she is alleged to have committed: https://vancouversun.com/news/local...tradition-appears-in-court-for-a-bail-hearing

Now, if the US wanted to extradite her for kangaroo poaching, Canada might well refuse, what with there being no kangaroos in either Canada nor the US.

 

[menzies]

She will be fine. Looks like the president will tell legal to set her loose citing national security and getting a better trade deal with China.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46533971

 

[Delfin]

What has that got to do with Meng Wanzhou, or Huawei and the allegations of fraud? Which is what this thread is discussing.

Or are you just trolling?

For someone who has self-identified as the smartest guy in the room, you do miss a lot. Re-read the first post, ask yourself why the accusation of the commission of fraud, i.e. lying to bankers to induce loans, was conflated by the poster to be all about Iranian sanctions. He doesn't seem too concerned about the crime, just whether sanctioning Iran is something that could even be construed as a crime. I'm not the only one who noticed this worry about treating fairly the regime that sees Israel as a one bomb problem being the point of starting the thread in the first place.

 

[Boat]

Who eye in cahoots with the Chinese Intelligence agencies is enough to paralyze with fear anyone who thinks this through. 5G surveillance systems are here and the hope is that 5G won't be a bad thing. My suspicion is that the international community is working with some conscientious Chinese Nationals to keep the keel on the boat.

 

[Delfin]

Who eye in cahoots with the Chinese Intelligence agencies is enough to paralyze with fear anyone who thinks this through. 5G surveillance systems are here and the hope is that 5G won't be a bad thing. My suspicion is that the international community is working with some conscientious Chinese Nationals to keep the keel on the boat.

https://nypost.com/2018/12/22/how-arrest-of-chinese-princess-exposes-regimes-world-domination-plot/

 

[MYTraveler]

I didn't follow the situation and know none of the details, but I assumed extradition, if no violation of Canadian law. Nothing new, nefarious or even unusual in that.

 

[Delfin]

I didn't follow the situation and know none of the details, but I assumed extradition, if no violation of Canadian law. Nothing new, nefarious or even unusual in that.

Given that the crime she is accused of is bank fraud to get loans to violate Iranian sanctions, no nothing unusual, even if it upsets China and Iran fans.

 

[Boat]

Huawei is in the news again.


https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/19/18632075/intel-qualcomm-huawei-ban-us-chipmakers-report


Report seems reasonable but I don't know the site, just a hit on google.


Personally hope China controls theft of intellectual property, unprecedented, massive, global, organized crime. Protection and protectionism are not always the same thing.

 

[FF]

"Personally hope China controls theft of intellectual property, unprecedented, massive, global, organized crime"

Estimated at $300 billion for past 30 years for USA alone.

Other hassle is Chinese view of signed agreements.
The Chinese see the agreement s ONLY valid with the conditions at the time of signing , if any condition changes the agreement no longer needs to be honored.

They refuse all sanctions by the WTO for violating treaties.

This must change , but the Chinese see it as loosing Face , so threatens their concept of being THE world power,

The trade war is not about soy bean quotas folks!

The Huawei 5G back doors will probably be solved with everyone using encryption.

 

[Group9]

Sometimes, I think we forget that different cultures have very different ideas on many things. What is right and wrong is very fluid, and often depends on where you happen to me standing at the moment.

 

[FF]

"Sometimes, I think we forget that different cultures have very different ideas on many things. What is right and wrong is very fluid, and often depends on where you happen to me standing at the moment."


Trade requires agreement on terms , I give this , you give that.


I give this, you just take it doesn't work very well.


Imagine poker where dealer changes rules in mid game.

 

[Boat]

Facets of high tech issues with China:

https://www.cnet.com/news/googles-problems-in-china-are-bigger-than-huawei/

https://appuals.com/google-abruptly...ue-to-security-privacy-and-regulator-concern/

https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/05/31/high-tech-surveillance-china-brazil

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/world/asia/china-surveillance-xinjiang.html

Human Rights Watch, which obtained and analyzed the app, said it helped the authorities spot behavior that they consider suspicious, including extended travel abroad or the use of an “unusual” amount of electricity.
The app, which the Times examined, also allows police officers to flag people they believe have stopped using a smartphone, have begun avoiding the use of the front door in coming and going from home, or have refueled someone else’s car.

The police use the app at checkpoints that serve as virtual “fences” across Xinjiang. If someone is tagged as a potential threat, the system can be set to trigger an alarm every time he or she tries to leave the neighborhood or enters a public place, Human Rights Watch said.
“The government’s arbitrary power is reflected, or coded, in the app,” Ms. Wang said, adding that the system “is programmed to consider vague, broad categories of behaviors, many of them perfectly legal, as indicators of suspiciousness.