22 hours ago, jasonsamui55 said:

So the US makes a rule and says that nobody can sell stuff to Iran, or make any payments to Iran.  The along comes a Chinese company which sells stuff to Iran.  Then the Chinese executive goes to a 3rd country and gets arrested.  Imagine if China said nobody could sell stuff to Taiwan, and the American company Apple sells some iphones to Taiwan, and then the Apple CEO Tim Cook goes on vacation to Thailand, and China asks Thailand to arrest Tim Cook and extradite him to China for his company selling iphones to Taiwan.  Would Americans be upset?  It seems about the same to me. America is trying to apply its laws well beyond its borders in declaring 2 3rd party countries cannot transact.  And then when they do, they arrest them when they visit a 3rd party patsy country that will bend over backwards to appease its masters.  Arrogant and crazy.

I see your point and it is valid.  You don't have to give in to the whims of the United States government. You just have to be willing to not do any business with them in the future. It is also their right to not do any business with you. Why do people get upset when the U.S. decides to use its financial power to get others to go along with them? It's not like they are threatening to bomb a country for doing business with a known adversary of theirs. Their weapon of choice is their buying power. 

23 hours ago, stevenl said:

You mean financial crimes like Goldman and many others committed?

There was no "Goldman"  accused let alone implicated in the Iran sanctions busting fraud. Why is it so difficult to deal with the specific case at hand?  I note your anti-semitic leanings as you attempt to link "Goldman" to this case. Disgusting.

 

The bank implicated was HSBC and it was the  entity that reported Huawei. Although headquartered in the UK, the bank is one of the largest foreign-owned banking networks on the mainland and has been incorporated in China since 2007. HSBC  has had a sordid history of money laundering

for UN sanctioned countries such as Iran, Myanmar, Libya, Sudan and Burma. It also was linked to  various drug cartels. After its last episode where it was caught and obliged to disgorge US $1.9 billion of unlawfully gained profit, part of its plea deal was to accept regulatory monitoring of its anti-money laundering measures in the U.S.  It is because of that vigilance that the alleged illegal activity of Huawei was caught.

 

Had Huawei not gone to a bank with a known track record of breaking sanctions and violating banking regulations, it might not have gotten caught. It's like buying  drugs from the corner pusher who is under police surveillance and  turned super grass to save his skin.

 

55 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

There was no "Goldman"  accused let alone implicated in the Iran sanctions busting fraud. Why is it so difficult to deal with the specific case at hand?  I note your anti-semitic leanings as you attempt to link "Goldman" to this case. Disgusting.

 

The bank implicated was HSBC and it was the  entity that reported Huawei. Although headquartered in the UK, the bank is one of the largest foreign-owned banking networks on the mainland and has been incorporated in China since 2007. HSBC  has had a sordid history of money laundering

for UN sanctioned countries such as Iran, Myanmar, Libya, Sudan and Burma. It also was linked to  various drug cartels. After its last episode where it was caught and obliged to disgorge US $1.9 billion of unlawfully gained profit, part of its plea deal was to accept regulatory monitoring of its anti-money laundering measures in the U.S.  It is because of that vigilance that the alleged illegal activity of Huawei was caught.

 

Had Huawei not gone to a bank with a known track record of breaking sanctions and violating banking regulations, it might not have gotten caught. It's like buying  drugs from the corner pusher who is under police surveillance and  turned super grass to save his skin.

 

Anti semitic leaning? Get a life.