Huawei founder's daughter arrested on U.S. request, clouding China trade truce

[manarak]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

This thing has been in the works for some time. Yet you're seriously suggesting that the Justice Dept didn't make a legally valid request for her detention? Grasping at straws, much?

this may surprise you because I guess you don't work in the legal field, but I have seen more than a few requests for arrest and requests for extradition that were dishonest, deliberately misrepresenting charges and just trying to get their way by impressing the other country.

in the country I lived in, Switzerland, there luckily is a working legal process that throws out all the excentic claims made. in other countries, these claims may well be taken at face value!

 

to give you an example, a swiss gentleman had arranged a lady from Germany to visit him at his home in France to perform certain services of private nature. he paid for her plane ticket.

the deed done, the swiss gentleman went back to switzerland and the lady back to germany.

somehow the matter landed in the hands of French police who probably had some sort of axe to grind, they wanted to make the gentleman's life miserable.

Switzerland received an extradition request on the following grounds:

- human trafficking: because by paying the plane ticket the guy had organized the border crossing of the lady.

- pimping: as the lady had met another cliebnt durign her stay in Paris, the gentleman was also, in the eyes of whatever idiots they have in Paris police, reponsible for procuring the lady because he organized her visit to paris.

 

now, "human trfficking" and "pimping" sound like quite serious charges, people would imagine an organized prostitution ring, possibly forced, possibly  with organized crime involvement, wehn all the poor guy did was to tell an escort know to him that he would like to spend a night with her in Paris !!

 

of course the request only got laughter from my colleagues who wasted their time working on that dishonest extradition request, because French legal services for police know perfectly well that neither of the alleged "crimes" are illegal in Switzerland.

 

--------------------------------------------------------

 

so that's the reason why I believe requests made by other contries must be taken with a grain of salt.

documents transmitted in order to gain an extradition can be full of lies and deceit, even if they come from countries supposedly run under a constitutional democracy.

 

the absence, in this case , of a clear reason for arrest might simply indicate that they are still looking for a reason.

I would be there are now 2 or 3 departments of the Canadian  ministry of justice plus maybe a task force running in circles to find in Canadian laws a valid reason for the arrestation.

 

 

 

[geriatrickid]

On 12/6/2018 at 4:21 AM, 300sd said:

Stupid move Canada.

Ahh, so you believe that respecting a longstanding treaty agreement  between the USA and Canada that has served the best interests of both countries is stupid. When countries enter into a binding agreement to  respect arrest warrants that meet the terms of the agreement and that are   upheld by a court  they cannot ignore their obligations under that treaty.

 

On 12/6/2018 at 5:01 AM, stevenl said:

So? Huawei may have violated USA sanctions on Iran, so the whole world has to obey the USA?

The alleged sanction violations would have violated Canada's sanctions as well. As you are obviously unaware, Canada has similar sanctions in force against Iran because of the multiple cases of torture and murder of  dual nationals in Iran. The most recent murders was of an apolitical academic.

 

Canada also continues to restrict the export to Iran of a wide range of sensitive products listed on the Export Control List (ECL), under the Export and Import Permits Act (EIPA). See Notice to Exporters Serial No. 196 for further information. http://www.international.gc.ca/controls-controles/systems-systemes/excol-ceed/notices-avis/196.aspx?lang=eng

 

It looks like the Chinese were caught busting sanctions that both Canada and the USA have in force and that seem to also  involve sanctions imposed by Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015).

 

IMO, China is simply trying to intimidate and bully the Canadians  for a legitimate enforcement of a sanctions law.

 

Edited December 11, 2018 by geriatrickid

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, manarak said:

this may surprise you because I guess you don't work in the legal field, but I have seen more than a few requests for arrest and requests for extradition that were dishonest, deliberately misrepresenting charges and just trying to get their way by impressing the other country.

in the country I lived in, Switzerland, there luckily is a working legal process that throws out all the excentic claims made. in other countries, these claims may well be taken at face value!

 

to give you an example, a swiss gentleman had arranged a lady from Germany to visit him at his home in France to perform certain services of private nature. he paid for her plane ticket.

the deed done, the swiss gentleman went back to switzerland and the lady back to germany.

somehow the matter landed in the hands of French police who probably had some sort of axe to grind, they wanted to make the gentleman's life miserable.

Switzerland received an extradition request on the following grounds:

- human trafficking: because by paying the plane ticket the guy had organized the border crossing of the lady.

- pimping: as the lady had met another cliebnt durign her stay in Paris, the gentleman was also, in the eyes of whatever idiots they have in Paris police, reponsible for procuring the lady because he organized her visit to paris.

 

now, "human trfficking" and "pimping" sound like quite serious charges, people would imagine an organized prostitution ring, possibly forced, possibly  with organized crime involvement, wehn all the poor guy did was to tell an escort know to him that he would like to spend a night with her in Paris !!

 

of course the request only got laughter from my colleagues who wasted their time working on that dishonest extradition request, because French legal services for police know perfectly well that neither of the alleged "crimes" are illegal in Switzerland.

 

--------------------------------------------------------

 

so that's the reason why I believe requests made by other contries must be taken with a grain of salt.

documents transmitted in order to gain an extradition can be full of lies and deceit, even if they come from countries supposedly run under a constitutional democracy.

 

the absence, in this case , of a clear reason for arrest might simply indicate that they are still looking for a reason.

I would be there are now 2 or 3 departments of the Canadian  ministry of justice plus maybe a task force running in circles to find in Canadian laws a valid reason for the arrestation.

 

 

 

This is a very high profile case. Presumably some of the Justice Department's best lawyers would be assigned to handle it. You really think it's likely that they're going to screw it up in such a blatantly incompetent way? Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

[300sd]

5 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

Ahh, so you believe that respecting a longstanding treaty agreement  between the USA and Canada that has served the best interests of both countries is stupid. When countries enter into a binding agreement to  respect arrest warrants that meet the terms of the agreement and that are   upheld by a court  they cannot ignore their obligations under that treaty.

 

The alleged sanction violations would have violated Canada's sanctions as well. As you are obviously unaware, Canada has similar sanctions in force against Iran because of the multiple cases of torture and murder of  dual nationals in Iran. The most recent murders was of an apolitical academic.

 

Canada also continues to restrict the export to Iran of a wide range of sensitive products listed on the Export Control List (ECL), under the Export and Import Permits Act (EIPA). See Notice to Exporters Serial No. 196 for further information. http://www.international.gc.ca/controls-controles/systems-systemes/excol-ceed/notices-avis/196.aspx?lang=eng

 

It looks like the Chinese were caught busting sanctions that both Canada and the USA have in force and that seem to also  involve sanctions imposed by Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015).

 

IMO, China is simply trying to intimidate and bully the Canadians  for a legitimate enforcement of a sanctions law.

 

My feeling is to take action against the company and not the CFO. The "legitimate enforcement of a sanctions law" in my opinion is not throwing the CFO in prison because maybe she is guilty of lying to some US bankers. It's just a can of worms. Maybe Canada has violated her human rights?? Screw the extradition treaty. I think the US has walked out of a couple of treaties before.

Regarding your first paragraph, yes I think it is very stupid to arrest her and hold her for god knows how long for Canada to figure out if the U.S. charges against her are valid enough for her extradition. Canada almost needs to try her before the US has done it! I would only agree with this if Canada had chosen to ban all products with Huawei because of the CFO's and the companies improper activities. And besides I love my Huawei smartphone. 

[manarak]

15 hours ago, bristolboy said:

This is a very high profile case. Presumably some of the Justice Department's best lawyers would be assigned to handle it. You really think it's likely that they're going to screw it up in such a blatantly incompetent way? Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

an impressive number of very serious matters have been screwed up at the highest levels already, sometimes intentionally.

anyway, not giving a reason for an arrest is not compatible with a constitutional democracy.

[pegman]

Granted bail of $10m

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, manarak said:

an impressive number of very serious matters have been screwed up at the highest levels already, sometimes intentionally.

anyway, not giving a reason for an arrest is not compatible with a constitutional democracy.

Probably she and her lawyers were given the reason.

[Pattaya46]

BREAKING NEWS: Huawei CFO Released on Bail

https://www.channelnews.com.au/breaking-news-huawei-cfo-released-on-bail/

 

A Canadian court has released Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou on bail, despite US concerns she is a flight risk. Total bail amount comes to $C10 million. [US$ 7.5 million]

Meng was judged not a flight risk due to a lack of previous criminal record and “various health problems”. [on cancer treatment]

 

...

[varun]

Let's see if she does a Yingluck-style runner.

Bet my bottom dollar she squirreled away a handful of passports and cash for contingencies like this.

 

And in related news:

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/2177515/former-canadian-diplomat-michael-kovrig-detained-china

 

[zydeco]

7 minutes ago, varun said:

Let's see if she does a Yingluck-style runner.

She doesn't need to. Trump has already promised to intervene for her and stop the extradition.  And the bail judge is no doubt looking over the new property where his new $20 million estate will be built.

[geriatrickid]

16 hours ago, 300sd said:

My feeling is to take action against the company and not the CFO. The "legitimate enforcement of a sanctions law" in my opinion is not throwing the CFO in prison because maybe she is guilty of lying to some US bankers. It's just a can of worms. Maybe Canada has violated her human rights?? Screw the extradition treaty. I think the US has walked out of a couple of treaties before.

Regarding your first paragraph, yes I think it is very stupid to arrest her and hold her for god knows how long for Canada to figure out if the U.S. charges against her are valid enough for her extradition. Canada almost needs to try her before the US has done it! I would only agree with this if Canada had chosen to ban all products with Huawei because of the CFO's and the companies improper activities. And besides I love my Huawei smartphone. 

 

The law holds the CFO liable. It's no different than filing inaccurate financial reports with regulators. Taking action against a "company" is an additional option. However, it is the CFO who authorizes financial transactions. The CEO, President and Board are liable for other issues such as a decision to violate a sanction. In this case, it is an allegation of misrepresentation/fraud to  financial institutions. In Canada, the USA, Australia, the EU etc., the CFO is one of the individuals who is specifically named under various laws as being held responsible for financial misconduct. It is an accepted part of the CFO's legal mandate.

[manarak]

4 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

 

The law holds the CFO liable. It's no different than filing inaccurate financial reports with regulators. Taking action against a "company" is an additional option. However, it is the CFO who authorizes financial transactions. The CEO, President and Board are liable for other issues such as a decision to violate a sanction. In this case, it is an allegation of misrepresentation/fraud to  financial institutions. In Canada, the USA, Australia, the EU etc., the CFO is one of the individuals who is specifically named under various laws as being held responsible for financial misconduct. It is an accepted part of the CFO's legal mandate.

actually no.

"CFO" does not bestow a special legal status different from other administrator/director/board members with according powers of attorney. liability arises from their signature on documents or their actions, not from their title of CFO.

 

[300sd]

6 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

 

The law holds the CFO liable. It's no different than filing inaccurate financial reports with regulators. Taking action against a "company" is an additional option. However, it is the CFO who authorizes financial transactions. The CEO, President and Board are liable for other issues such as a decision to violate a sanction. In this case, it is an allegation of misrepresentation/fraud to  financial institutions. In Canada, the USA, Australia, the EU etc., the CFO is one of the individuals who is specifically named under various laws as being held responsible for financial misconduct. It is an accepted part of the CFO's legal mandate.

Yes I agree with the above "kid" and I'm sure you are correct. This is a very delicate situation for Canada and I'm not sure that the US has given enough proof that she, or the Company is guilty, to warrant this action from Canada, (but maybe they have). At least Canada has done the right thing now and given her bail. I don't care if she gets away. Today China started their reprisals against Canada.