Canada Allows US Extradition of Huawei CFO To Proceed (reuters.com) 79
The Canadian government has allowed for the extradition proceedings against the CFO of Huawei to proceed. "Today, department of Justice Canada officials issued an authority to proceed, formally commencing an extradition process in the case of Ms. Meng Wanzhou," the government said in a statement. Meng Wanzhou was arrested in Canada in December at the request of American authorities, who allege that she violated U.S. sanctions against Iran. From the report: China, whose relations with Canada have deteriorated badly over the affair, denounced the decision and repeated previous demands for Meng's release. Legal experts had predicted Ottawa would give the go-ahead for extradition proceedings, given the close judicial relationship between Canada and the United States. It could be years though before Meng is ever sent to the United States, since Canada's slow-moving justice system allows many decisions to be appealed. Meng's lawyers said they were disappointed and described the U.S. charges as politically motivated.
Re:Oh, and so it begins ... (Score:4, Funny)
*Grabs popcorn* I just came here for the comments...
Re: (Score:3)
I'm still reading through the commends waiting for someone to tell me why this is important.
Re: (Score:2)
It is world politics, leaded by the US, so it is *important*.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it isn't. It isn't important in anyway, shape, or factor. It doesn't belong on /. but for some strange reason it is. We have plenty of other "propaganda" sites that will tell us why its important, with their own brand of spin.
Re: (Score:2)
We have plenty of other "propaganda" sites that will tell us why its important /.
You have, I have not. I only read
Re: (Score:2)
From my standpoint its a classical case of "Nothing new to see here, now move along"
Huawei is a global chinese state corporation engaging in global trade for telecommunication, like ZTE.
USA as a global superpower want its trading partners to engage global trade in a way that find beneficial.
By itself, this case is similar to USA vs Megaupload's founder.
Or the alleged USA vs Assange
And a lot of cases.
So in this case, the Casus belli given is Huawei engaging in trade with Iran, where somebody found out that
U.S. Executives Should Avoid Visiting China (Score:1)
If an executive can be arrested on (if you'll excuse the term) trumped-up charges by Canada at the request of the U.S., it follows that China can and almost certainly will retaliate.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We definitely shouldn't take any actions that make China unhappy.
Re:U.S. Executives Should Avoid Visiting China (Score:5, Insightful)
If you always do what the bully wants, you'll always be bullied.
Canada has treated Meng very humanely and by all appearances followed the letter of the law. China should look at Canada as an exemplar.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, well, it was meant to be sarcasm. Oh, well.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They know it's the US just using her as leverage in the trade negotiations. It won't work of course.
Re: U.S. Executives Should Avoid Visiting China (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe they are, and I'm sure when China arrests more US citizens it will be on legitimate charges too.
Re: (Score:1)
I can't wait for them to arrest Bezos and Zuck. What a wonderful way to get rid of some dickheads.
Re: (Score:1)
There is no hiding of Amijojo, Shanghaibill or Hackingbear. They flaunt their hatred of the USA and love of China's authoritarian government. You can almost see it in every post they make..
Re: (Score:2)
We'll see how long that lasts - China has recently been increasingly hostile to expats.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, the Chinese hold hostages, political prisoners, and are committing genocide against several ethnic groups. As far as "trumped up charges" ... the timing of the charges was politically motivated to damage Trump, but Canadian courts are very apolitical. Approving the deportation demonstrates the merits of the charges much, much more credibly than anything out of the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Your take on the Chinese governments lack of value for individual rights is pretty accurate. And I would have strongly agreed that the Canadian judicial process was apolitical, especially under the current government, until Wednesday afternoon when it was shaken.
But your larger point stands. It looks very much like there is something to the charges.
Re: (Score:1)
What argument do you have to support your assertion that this deportation decision was a gross departure from decades of Canadian judicial
Re: (Score:3)
But your larger point stands. It looks very much like there is something to the charges.
There is nothing to the charges.
No company in China is obliged to follow a trade embargo the mighty US of Assholes decided.
Heck: the EU is founding a new bank under leadership of UK (yes, despite BREXIT) France and Germany to secure money transfers and ongoing projects between Iran (yes, the Mullas) and the EU.
It is time that americans simply stop fucking up the planet. Stop your brain dead embargoes on NK, Venezuela, Cu
Re: (Score:2)
No company in China is obliged to follow a trade embargo the mighty US of Assholes decided.
But every company in China is obliged to not defraud American investors by claiming the money they borrowed is not for an Iranian project, when it is.
Continue to hold the hostage (Score:3, Interesting)
Can't get any real concessions in trade talk, continue to hold the hostage.
That's a misleading headline (Score:1)
Canada has allowed the court proceedings to decide whether to allow extradition to commence.
The legal process could easily take a decade. Mung isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
I'll make you a deal (Score:1)
"So here's a deal, Chiiiiyyyyna -- you deliver us Assange , and we'll drop the extradition request on your CFO person. I'm a dealmaker, I'm the best dealmaker, so you know this is a great deal, for both of us, on both of our sides (appropriate hand gesture)."
Re:China's right: US has no jurisdictional authori (Score:5, Insightful)
China's right on about this being a political maneuver regardless of whose responsible for said actions. China's relationship and companies thereof are outside the law of the US and Canada's jurisdiction. The US has no legitimate jurisdictional authority here and neither does Canada.
I don't have an opinion on who is in the right here, and who should prevail. This may very well be a political maneuver on the part of the US. However, I think that the US position is tenable. Let me explain why.
The US claims that Huawei, through its wholly-owned subsidiary Skycom, made misrepresentations to US-based financial firms about its activities in Iran that were in violation of US law. The US Justice and Treasury Departments announced they were investigating Huawei in April 2018.
In December 2018, Huawei's vice-chair and CFO Meng Wanzhou was arrested in Vancouver, Canada, at the request of the US. By entering a country that had an extradition treaty with the US, she imperiled herself. Canada then had to: (a) decide whether to hold an extradition hearing; (b) hold one if they decide to do so; and (c) extradite Meng Wanzhou if the hearing concludes with that decision. Canada just finished part (a).
If the argument is accepted that they do have jurisdictional authority then the US and Canada should be extraditing people to China to face charges who have never stepped foot in China for breaking a variety of laws that exist in China but that don't exist here despite people in the US breaking said Chinese laws having never even been to China.
I can accept that the US has jurisdictional authority over crimes committed within the US. And by engaging with US firms in an alleged fraudulent way, Skycom placed itself in that jurisdiction.
I suppose it could be the same if a US or Canadian person broke a Chinese law when engaging with a Chinese company. But that person would need to travel to China (or a country with an extradition treaty with China) to be subject to arrest and extradition. China has extradition treaties with about 40 countries. The US is not one of them.
Do we extradite gay people to Iran to face charges there because they interacted with someone on the internet in Iran that broke laws against homosexuality in Iran?
No, because: (a) the US and Iran do not have an extradition treaty; and (b) even if they did, there is no certainty that an extradition hearing would even happen, or if it did, that the person would be extradited. That's how extraditions work. They're not automatic. The country holding the prisoner has to decide.
On the other hand, if such a person were to travel to Iran, or to a country with an extradition treaty with Iran, I can imagine they could be arrested.
This is the kind of bullshit you get when you ignore jurisdictional boundaries and the rights of other nations and there companies to free trade. The US is being the bully here and Canada's actions are demonstrating it is an accomplice.
I don't think anyone is ignoring jurisdictional boundaries here. If Skycom had not done its banking with a US firm, I think the US would not have a tenable position.
I am reminded of an incident that happened a few years ago. A US citizen (I think) wrote something online that insulted the royalty of another country (Thailand IIRC). That US citizen subsequently went to Thailand as a tourist, and was arrested at the port of entry. I'm not sure how the case ended.
TL/DR: traveler beware. Unpleasant things can happen when your travels put you in reach of the authorities of another country who thinks you did something wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
Do we extradite gay people to Iran to face charges there because they interacted with someone on the internet in Iran that broke laws against homosexuality in Iran?
No, because: (a) the US and Iran do not have an extradition treaty; and (b) even if they did, there is no certainty that an extradition hearing would even happen, or if it did, that the person would be extradited. That's how extraditions work. They're not automatic. The country holding the prisoner has to decide.
I forgot to mention that I think extradition hearings often consider the question of whether the alleged offense would be considered an offense in the country holding the hearing, under similar circumstances. So for example, if Canada passed a similar law restricting trade with Iran, then the extradition hearing might consider that Meng Wanzhou likely would be charged in Canada and face trial. On the other hand, being gay is not (well, no longer?) a crime in the US, so I would assume an extradition request
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, being gay is not (well, no longer?) a crime in the US, so I would assume an extradition request made on that basis would fail. (But IANAL.) :P
Well, just saying, but using gay and IANAL in the same sentence looks rather weird to me
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
activities in Iran that were in violation of US law.
Right there I have a problem with this. The U.S. has no jurisdiction over actions in Iran by a non American company and non American citizens.
Re:China's right: US has no jurisdictional authori (Score:5, Insightful)
activities in Iran that were in violation of US law.
Right there I have a problem with this. The U.S. has no jurisdiction over actions in Iran by a non American company and non American citizens.
Arguably the US does if the non-American company involves American companies by misrepresenting their intentions. Which is what Justice and Treasury allege that Huawei/Skycom did. The "stepped a foot" as it were, into the US, and thus exposed themselves to US jurisdiction.
Again, I'm not sure of the merits of the case against Huawei. I just think the US position is tenable, though it's to be determined whether it will endure the processes that will unfold from here.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct.
The U.S. instead has jurisdiction over monetary transfers conducted through the U.S. banking system that were intended to violate U.S. sanctions and completed based upon fraud allegedly committed by the accused when dealing with U.S. banks.
As reported here [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Except how hypocritical the US is with their prosecution. There are tons of examples of e.g. bank executives who probably should be guilty of fraud who weren't prosecuted in the US at ALL, despite LIVING in the US. At most, they were given a fine.
"The US rarely arrests senior businesspeople, US or foreign, for alleged crimes committed by their companies. Corporate managers are usually arrested for their alleged personal crimes (such as embezzlement, bribery, or violence) rather than their company’s
Re: (Score:2)
I am reminded of an incident that happened a few years ago. A US citizen (I think) wrote something online that insulted the royalty of another country (Thailand IIRC). That US citizen subsequently went to Thailand as a tourist, and was arrested at the port of entry. I'm not sure how the case ended.
While Thailand has laws like that, the case is most likely a myth.
How the funk would a Thai court know who exactly wrote that insulting comment? What passport he has, how he looks like?
And King Rama IX pardoned EV
Flapping Heads (Score:1)
So after they told this dude he was getting extradited did they say ....
You're not our buddy, guy.
You're not our guy, friend.
You're not our friend, buddy.
etc.
etc.
etc.