Huawei's CFO Is Being Accused of Fraud, and Her Main Defense Is a PowerPoint (theverge.com) 121
"Today, a bail hearing was held for Huawei's chief financial officer, who was arrested in Canada on Saturday at the request of U.S. law enforcement," reports The Verge. "The CFO, Meng Wanzhou, is facing extradition to the U.S. for conspiring to defraud banking institutions, according to the Star Vancouver." The Verge reports that her main defense is "a PowerPoint presentation that Meng had once given to explain to a bank in Hong Kong that Huawei had not violated any U.S. sanctions." From the report: Many lined up to see Meng's bail hearing today, after the extremely high-profile arrest that signified the first major break in a U.S. probe that has mostly been kept from the public. The U.S. has an arrest warrant out for Meng that was issued by a New York court on August 22nd. It has 60 days from the time of Meng's arrest on Saturday to provide Canadian courts with evidence and intent.
Meng served on the board for a Hong Kong-based company called Skycom, which allegedly did business with Iran between 2009 and 2014. U.S. banks worked with Huawei at this time, so Iran sanctions were violated indirectly, and Meng therefore committed fraud against these banks. Skycom reportedly had connections to Huawei and at the bail hearing today, Gibb-Carsley argued that Skycom was an unofficial subsidiary of Huawei's, using the same company logo. "Huawei is SkyCom," he said, "This is the crux, I say, of the alleged fraud." The hearing also examined whether Meng would be a flight risk if she was granted the $1 million bail, part of the argument Gibb-Carsley was pushing. "Defense lawyer Martin responded by explaining the Chinese emphasis on saving face, and how Meng wouldn't want her father and Huawei to look bad. Even more than that, 'she would not embarrass China itself,' Martin said."
Meng served on the board for a Hong Kong-based company called Skycom, which allegedly did business with Iran between 2009 and 2014. U.S. banks worked with Huawei at this time, so Iran sanctions were violated indirectly, and Meng therefore committed fraud against these banks. Skycom reportedly had connections to Huawei and at the bail hearing today, Gibb-Carsley argued that Skycom was an unofficial subsidiary of Huawei's, using the same company logo. "Huawei is SkyCom," he said, "This is the crux, I say, of the alleged fraud." The hearing also examined whether Meng would be a flight risk if she was granted the $1 million bail, part of the argument Gibb-Carsley was pushing. "Defense lawyer Martin responded by explaining the Chinese emphasis on saving face, and how Meng wouldn't want her father and Huawei to look bad. Even more than that, 'she would not embarrass China itself,' Martin said."
Did she keep a calendar? (Score:4, Funny)
Without it, Brett Kavanagh's chances would have been boofed
Re: Did she keep a calendar? (Score:1)
Where is the proof that he lied?
Re: (Score:1)
Senator, I did not—I was not involved and am not involved in the questions about the rules governing detention of combatants or—and so I do not have the involvement with that.
NPR, 2007: [archive.org]
Kavanaugh used to clerk for the Supreme Court's swing voter, Justice Anthony Kennedy, and he advised the White House lawyers at that meeting that Kennedy would probably reject the President's claim that American combatants could be denied access to a lawyer.
Well, so apparently he's perfectly capable of lying when he shouldn't be lying.
Re: (Score:2)
Quote it in full, pls, because it is not wonderful but not nearly as damning in context.
What was your role in the original Haynes nomination and decision
to renominate him? And at the time of the nomination, what
did you know about Mr. Haynes’s role in crafting the administration’s
detention and interrogation policies?
Mr. KAVANAUGH. Senator, I did not—I was not involved and am
not involved in the questions about the rules governing detention
of combatants or—and so I do not have the involvement with that.
And with respect to Mr. Haynes’s nomination, I’ve—I know Jim
Haynes, but it was not one of the nominations that I handled. I
handled a number of nominations in the Counsel’s Office. That was
not one of the ones that I handled.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The FBI interviewed several people. Everyone they interviewed on Kavanaugh's side backed him up. Everyone on Ford's side either couldn't help, contradicted her, or indicated they didn't believe her. Her own family refused to talk to the FBI. It was intentionally limited because the Democrats wanted an open, never-ending investigation like they're doing over the "Russia collusion" investigation.
Kavanaugh got the nomination because he was one of the most moderate options under consideration (least likely
Re: Did she keep a calendar? (Score:4, Informative)
They didn't interview Kavanaugh nor his (if you bothered seeing the testimony: incredibly brave, who knew this would probably not do anything other than damage her life, who passed a polygraph test) accuser. Not only that, they didn't interview other friends of Kavanaugh who were more than willing to say "he was lying" (as was seen on the more right wing newspapers that aren't Fox). Of course you bring up "Russia collusion", of course you're trying to project... because the FBI never bothered talking to Ford or Kavanaugh, so that "investigation" was a farce.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah the Russia Investigation where upon the Big Question is: What did the President know and when did he stop knowing it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, you don't like him. Got it.
Re: Did she keep a calendar? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My point is that even though I'm a conservative, I dislike him as well. That doesn't disqualify him. The elected president chose him and the Senate confirmed him. I wish our elected officials would stop trying to push the courts into following their ideologies and simply put forth the best legal scholars, but we don't live in Utopia, so here we are. There are a couple other justices that I don't think are the best (on both sides of the spectrum) as well, it doesn't mean their disqualified.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed
Re: (Score:2)
Well. no one is disqualified if they get the vote. I think the argument should have centered around his incompetence as a judge rather than his calendar from 30 years ago.
Once he introduced that calendar, his nomination should have been boofed.
It clearly showed that an incident as described by Blasey-Ford could have happened on or around July 4th.
And his conduct was unbecoming a traffic court witness, let alone a high ranking judge
Re: (Score:2)
"simply put forth the best legal scholars, but we don't live in Utopia, so here we are"
one way to mitigate that is to have term limits for the SCOTUS.
10-15 years is plenty with staggered retirements so that you don't have a plurality of justices being replaced in a very short period.
Re: (Score:2)
So, how do you then avoid judges making decisions in favor of people/companies who they'll be working for when their time is up? Term limits doesn't only get rid of the less qualified, it gets rid of the top qualified. I'm all for term limits in Congress and Executive office. Not so much for SCOTUS.
Re: (Score:2)
So, how do you then avoid judges making decisions in favor of people/companies who they'll be working for when their time is up? Term limits doesn't only get rid of the less qualified, it gets rid of the top qualified. I'm all for term limits in Congress and Executive office. Not so much for SCOTUS.
There's nothing *now* from preventing that scary scenario of yours. Federal judges make $200k - 270k which is chump change for industries wanting to reward their friends.
In fact, it's likely that's been happening a lot in the past since their salaries were effectively stagnant or frozen for long stretches between 1990 and 2014
http://www.uscourts.gov/judges... [uscourts.gov]
Being in favor of term limits for Congress but not for judges makes little sense; if they're corrupt, they'll cheat.
The private sector can always throw
Re: (Score:2)
The part about it being illegal is preventing it. The way it's done w/o term limits by Congress and regulators is the revolving door, where they get paid big bucks when they exit government. If you don't exit, the only way to get paid is a flat out bribe. I'm not saying it never happens, but I think it's MUCH less likely with lifetime appointments.
I use PowerPoints as defense too (Score:1)
Your honor I could not have been selling pot, I was making this PowerPoint of Cheetos
Doing it wrong. Not defensive, offensive (Score:2)
If her defense is PowerPoint, she's doing it backwards.
PowerPoint isn't defensive, it's offensive. Death by PowerPoint.
PowerPoint foils: Is there ANYTHING they can't do? (Score:2)
I just created a cure for cancer! Here, let me show you this PowerPoint presentation as proof!
I absolutely did not have sex with that girl. Here, let me show you this PowerPoint presentation as proof!
I know nothing about any 'tapes'; I am not a crook! Here, let me show you this PowerPoint presentation as proof!
No collusion! Here, let me show you this PowerPoint presentation as proof!
If the gl
Re: (Score:2)
Pray away the gray (Score:1)
Lock up the faceless gray PowerPoint avatars!
(Boy, I hated that "default avatar" fad. Every big tech co tried to be social media and have everybody upload their ugly mug. The default gray head is still in many products.)
Re: (Score:2)
Or, it was written by an Asgard wearing a wig.
Chicom fraud (Score:2)
That is not any kind of a surprise.
This is nonsensical (Score:1)
I just read the article twice and Iâ(TM)m still very confused. But then again, I am also very drunk.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Intoxication might also be the reason for the headline.
When you sober up, here's a different summary: Huawei has ties to a company named SkyCom. SkyCom did business with Iran, while Huawei did business with US banks, and Huawei was saying (to the banks) that they weren't doing any business with Iran. Mrs. Meng is on the board for both companies.
The real legal questions, then, are:
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is this is just government doing their job and there is nothing nefarious here, or even related to Trump and all his shit show. I'd say let this play out.
My guess is this is the USA trying to bully foreign companies again, using some of their idiot massively over-reaching "laws", whether ordered by Mr. Orange himself or not.
My guess is that you don't understand the case. This is a U.S. law allegedly being broken, with U.S. victims, by a foreign person, by a person located (at the time of arrest) in a nation that agrees with American laws enough to sign a treaty to help enforce them.
Now, I'd agree with you on sanctions being looking awfully close to the American government meddling in another nation's affairs, but that's really not what this case is about. The charge is conspiracy to defraud American banks.
One test I like for
Re: (Score:2)
"...U.S. law is not enforceable on Chinese companies (despite the theories of the tinfoil-hat crowd). "
Huawei has a U.S. address. They do business in the U.S. Their money flows through U.S. banks. If you think the U.S. has no way to enforce penalties against them, you're delusional.
The defense raps (Score:2, Funny)
If my PowerPoint's Da Shit, you must Acquit!
High school letter (Score:2)
I don't think I'd want to be an American in China (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not saying that arrest was fair, but China has a history of stealing people too. Forgetting the individuals they''ve stolen, they have also stolen Tibet, and are busing stealing UigherLand I forget what that province is called). The latter constitutes stealing because they are resettling it with Han Chinese, just like they are doing in Tibet. Taiwan is next on the agenda because the fearless leaders of the Chinese Communist Party do actually fear (1) having no legitimacy to govern, (2) a land of free Ch
Re: (Score:3)
Kinda like stealing Hawaii and populating it with Americans or stealing chunks of Mexico and populating it with English speakers. Or perhaps like stealing a good chunk of N. America from the occupants and doing all kinds of nasty stuff to the original inhabitants.
Re: (Score:1)
Why would she need a defence? (Score:1, Interesting)
When no proof of her offence had been shown?
How could anyone prove innocence absence any evidence of a crime?
So now In America you have to prove you had NOT committed any crime, rather than the prosecution proving that you had committed a crime?
This is a kidnapping followed by a witch-hunt trial.
Welcome to America, the land of kidnapping. This is no different from Somali pirates taking hostages for ransom.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Welcome to America, the land of kidnapping. This is no different from Somali pirates taking hostages for ransom
You have no concept of how great America is. Those Somali losers have to go do their own kidnapping; the USA simply has to ask others like Canada (again) to do it for them
Oh there is proof (Score:5, Interesting)
From the original article linked from the summary:
As there is a publication ban in effect, we cannot provide any further detail at this time. The ban was sought by Ms. Meng.
There is proof, and SHE blocked us from seeing it so it must be super bad.
Guilty.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey buddy, it's Canada considering the evidence to extradite her - and again it's evidence we could all otherwise see, but she blocked us from seeing it.
Once she gets here she'll go to real court. Try to keep up, I know you are an AC and naturally dull-witted, but really
She can be grateful she's not going to be going to whatever shithole third world court system you live under where they would just shoot her in the head and throw her in a ditch. I know that's how you live but here in civilization we have
Re: (Score:1)
Go home chinese troll.
Re: (Score:2)
More likely she asked for privacy to save face and reduce the embarrassment to her family and company.
Sadly the "different culture = guilty" attitude is all too common.
Re: (Score:2)
It's all going to come out in future hearing(s), so that seems pretty unlikely.
Re: (Score:1)
Canada has no Freeze Peach. When she gets down here, then they can tell you what she did. In Canada she can keep it secret, at least the boring parts that happen in Canada.
The reality is, if they simply agree to extradition they'll have better pre-trial conditions in the US in most cases.
Re: (Score:3)
She's until proven guilty. If you want to prove that you shouldn't be extradited and face trial, they have a lower burden. Just like a grand jury has to agree you should be prosecuted before the trial starts. They don't need to believe it beyond a reasonable doubt, that's what the later trial is for.
Re: (Score:2)
So now In America you have to prove you had NOT committed any crime, rather than the prosecution proving that you had committed a crime?
Well, that is so if you are (A) one of the least privileged 99.9%; or (B) a despised and hated foreigner.
If you are one of the elite, there is hardly a law you cannot break (or, more precisely, ignore) with utter impunity. That's the way the system works, and that's the way it was set up to work back in 1776-94.
Re: (Score:3)
Repeating your lie won't make it true...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
And those are only the fed. There has been a long list of governors, and mayors who are or have done time.
Here are some CEOs for you. I won't bother you with the Martha Stewarts of the world.
Jeff Skilling, former CEO of Enron
Serving 24 years for fraud, insider trading, and other crimes related to the collapse of Enron
Bernie Ebbers, former CEO of WorldCom
Serving 25 years for accounting fraud that cost investors over $100 billion
Dennis
$1 million bail is a joke (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
No... it's bait. They want her to bail out and run so there will be no trial and she can be assumed guilty.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
“Xi has thrown thousands of political enemies in Jail for fraud and money laundering charges“
See, fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:2)
“Xi has thrown thousands of political enemies in Jail for fraud and money laundering charges“
See, fixed that for you.
As is traditional on Slashdot, could you give us any evidence for your assertions? Any shred of evidence? Anything at all?
Or is it just "Everyone knows the Chinese are wicked..."?
Re: (Score:2)
Google is your friend...please use it.
https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So... you think punishing officials for corruption is bad? You prefer the American system, where it is legal and widespread?
There is nothing in the article to which you linked that even hints that those imprisoned are political enemies of Mr Xi.
Re: (Score:3)
From the linked article...
"One of China's elite prisons has become overcrowded with political prisoners..."
From https://freedomhouse.org/blog/... [freedomhouse.org]
If there is one thing that the Chinese government would most like us to overlook, however, it is the ferocious suppression of political dissent.
Headline speaks for itself
https://www.economist.com/chin... [economist.com]
Do you need more, or are you a Chinese troll?
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess. Yet another person who probably doesnt even own a passport posting negative stories about China?
Go back to FOX news.
Re: (Score:2)
How far will you get with travel bans and no passport? You act like it's a case of spending a bit of money and then walking to the airport and waving goodbye. You will actually find yourself in a far more difficult position, even if you weren't in such a high profile situation.
There's a reason we still talk about a certain high profile person who's still hiding in an embassy somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
sheesh, do you really think China won't find a way to spirit her out of the country even with travel bands and no passport? What do you take the Chinese government for? Honorable civil servants who follow rule of law instead of the merry band of cut-throat power addicts who view the world as something to be cowed and owned into submission?
Re: (Score:2)
sheesh, do you really think China won't find a way to spirit her out of the country even with travel bands and no passport? What do you take the Chinese government for?
What do you take the Chinese government for? Have you been watching too many spy movies? They may find such a way, with incredibly difficulty and a fucking huge international relations debacle as a result.
I'm sorry (Score:2, Interesting)
As someone who lives in Canada, I'd like to apologize for Canada helping the US to enforce its imperialistic policies. People of the world have to understand that we Canadians do not have any kind of backbone. The only thing we can do is to submit and then to apologize, exactly like I'm doing.
Again, I'm sorry.
Re: (Score:3)
"Canadians do not have any kind of backbone."
Well you guys make Molsen.. oh wait, looks like we fucked that one up. For that, we're both sorry.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you a Canadian Citizen?
If she committed a crime, whhttps://news.slashdot.org/story/18/12/07/2315243/huaweis-cfo-is-being-accused-of-fraud-and-her-main-defense-is-a-powerpoint#y do you apologize? How are you so sure she did not commit a crime?
Do you think corrupt leaders of state run business in China would be a better partner and protector of your freedom in Canada than the United States?
As someone who is a good friend and admirer of Canada, your comment bothers me.
For more than 100 years Canada and th
Re: (Score:2)
For more than 100 years Canada and the United States have been partners against all types of dictatorships and evil.. The world is evil. Communist China is evil.
Surely you don't really believe a word of that. At any rate, by posting it you have lost all credibility.
The world is NOT black and white, good versus evil. It contains a lot of people who do very good things, and a lot of people who do very bad things; those people are pretty evenly distributed. Largely, the amount of good or harm an individual does is a matter of opportunity.
"If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the re
Re: (Score:1)
Except for Jordan Peterson.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called an Extradition Treaty [oas.org]
Fucked (Score:1)
desperate (Score:2)
Google no better (Score:2)
US general has a question for Google: Why will you work with China but not us?
Re: (Score:2)
Then China will go mad
That certainly won't happen. The Chinese are the calmest, most level-header players at the top table. They are about as emotional as a chess (or maybe Go) grandmaster considering her next move.
Useful precedent (Score:5, Interesting)
As I understand it, a US court has ordered the arrest and extradition of a Chinese corporation's CFO on charges of fraud.
Does that mean that Chinese, European and other countries' courts will now be able to arrest and extradite the American executives responsible for the 2008 crash? Between them they caused trillions of dollars of losses worldwide, not a penny of which they paid themselves. Governments had to milk their taxpayers for said trillions in order to "make good" the balance sheets and reserves of supposedly system-critical banks and other financial institutions.
This was the biggest fraud in the history of the world, yet how many executives have been indicted in the USA? https://radiofreethinker.files... [wordpress.com]
Zero.
“Ron Suskind’s Confidence Men reported that on March 27 2009, just two months after taking office, [Obama] invited the executives of thirteen leading Wall Street institutions to the White House. After listening to their arguments for why banks had to go on paying bonuses (ostensibly to get the best talent to manage their money), Obama told them: ‘Be careful how you make those statements, gentlemen. The public isn’t buying that’. He explained that only he could provide them with the political shield needed to forestall public pressure for reform, not to mention prosecution of financial fraud. ‘My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks’”.
- Michael Hudson, "Killing the Host", page 253
Useful precedent (Score:1)
This is a fabulous idea! I doubt you'll find any US citizen that would be upset for someone, nay ANYONE, finally brought to justice over that fiasco.
Re: (Score:2)
A foreign company's transactions in the US are governed by US law. If they do those transactions under the false pretense of complying with US laws then that's considered fraudulent, and the US institution would not automatically be party to that fraud.
That seems to be the nature of the allegations here. The linked article mentions allegedly fraudulent dealings with US banks by Huawei, at a time another company called "Skycom" was doing business in Iran. The US alleges that Huawei was doing business thro