US Agrees Not To Pursue Fraud Charges Against Huawei CFO (theverge.com) 90
Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou would appear in a Brooklyn federal courtroom today via streaming video and enter a plea regarding US charges against her. From a report: Canadian authorities arrested the Chinese executive in December 2018 on suspicion of violating US sanctions, and she has remained there on house arrest ever since, fighting US attempts at extradition. Hearings in her extradition case ended in August, with the ruling scheduled for October 21st. Meng was indicted on fraud charges claiming the Chinese technology and telecommunications company misrepresented its relationship with an Iranian affiliate, along with accusations it stole intellectual property from T-Mobile. The 13-count indictment named Meng, Huawei, and two of its subsidiaries -- Huawei USA and Skycom. On Friday afternoon, Meng pleaded not guilty. Prosecutors submitted a statement of facts asserting that in 2013 she told financial institutions the Iranian company Skycom was a partner of Huawei while knowing that Skycom was owned and controlled by a Huawei subsidiary to act as its agent in the region. As part of the deal in making this admission, the prosecution says "Meng has agreed to the accuracy of a four-page statement of facts that details the knowingly false statements she made to Financial Institution 1."
Oh come on (Score:5, Informative)
Note the complete lack of any mention of the two Canadians that were picked up at random and held hostage in exchange for the very open arrest of Meng Wanzhou.
Nor the way the US basically did exactly nothing to help with the situation, and left them twisting for over 1000 days with zero freedom while Wanzhou was walking about Vancouver.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, hit wrong button. I meant to say that at least the original article mentioned this while this capsule failed to.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People don't appreciate how upset China was about it. Meng was welcomed home as a hero.
https://youtu.be/jGUZfIUOP6U [youtu.be]
Why are you here? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The echo chamber outside of fox is about as different as a big mac. How long have you been jacking off to Cuomo and Lemon? Or maybe Maddow and Reid are more your taste?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But oh well, I guess the current administration is nicely paid...err....more friendly to China and their wishes these days.
I guess we are too far gone for our congress critters to acknowledge that China is not our friend, and we need to be always on alert for their actions against us.
But I"ve heard that Huawei hardware may actually be welcome to be used in the US again....so, I guess no one in the govt. gives a fsck about national security anymore.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Logically Huawei hardware is no worse than any other when you think about it. In fact in some ways it's better.
You can test it the same as anything else. It's actually got fewer CVEs than Cisco gear. Huawei will share source code with an NDA.
We also know that US products get backdoored by the NSA and CIA so if you are worried about governments getting in, well avoiding Huawei isn't going to help.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't like the US gov't spying on me, but given a choice between them or the CCP, the US is definitely the lesser of two evils for me.
Hmm I wonder why you'd be more scared of the CPP..
I can't quite put my finger on it...
Which government would you be more scared of if you were a Jan 6th insurrectionist?
You'd uploaded some latest release blockbuster?
Free Hawaii
Make Puerto Rico a state
And sadly - America needs a democracy movement.
Re: (Score:3)
I play whack a mole weekly when some user does something dumbish that launches a cyberattack that harnesses all those bloody backdoors and Idiot think at the NSA.
I am SO sick and tired being woken by SOC calls for attacks in progress.
After seeing what Snowden Revealed it became obvious that surveillance by any means trumped being responsible.
US government agencies have lost their way - and to my mind, the events I deal with are 99% critically incompetent fuckery that was born in the U.S.A., than any foreign
Re: (Score:2)
It has to be said, if Chinese backdoors exist they seem to be much better protected. Very rarely does knowledge of them leak out.
I'd suggest it's probably because they aren't there at all. Think about it, they don't need them for domestic spying because that's legal in China. Companies are legally obliged to help them do it.
Foreign targets of interest often shun Chinese gear anyway, and would definitely stop buying it if real backdoors were discovered. Plus it's not like there is a shortage of exploits for
Re: (Score:2)
Probably due to better censorship and if you are a whistle blower in China you are soon dead.
Much better censorship. And they aren't above arresting people to make a point. Throw in the odd politically motivated execution.
And that easily explains why Chinese people aren't finding them.
But how does any of that influence that fact people outside of China, especially the ones with a quite a bit of incentive to prove that there are backdoors. Still aren't disclosing all the secret backdoors that all Chinese products must have?
Are the Chinese really just that much better at hiding them?
Re: (Score:2)
I would not be surprised if they stole the technology to put in a back door that is near impossible to find from our own NSA.
Are you seriously suggesting the NSA can't even find their own backdoors?
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
As I understand this deal she pleads not guilty, admits all the facts (aka guilt), then suffers no consequence.
Re: (Score:2)
>As I understand this deal she pleads not guilty, admits all the facts (aka guilt)
Guilt ? Only if you believe the US has jurisdiction in any of this and if she actually "put HSBC at risk of violating the US sanctions on Iran with her Point presentation".
Re: (Score:2)
Of course that should have been PowerPoint presentation, and by admitting the "facts" she just confirmed it was her PowerPoint and that she was the one who presented.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Which it does and she did."
I get that some do. I'm partial to the belief the US was abusing it's position as a world leader and at best guilty of overreach. And as for Meng Wanzhou, she got caught up as a bargaining chip in Trump's and China's counterproductive politico-commercial escalation of 2018. Just like subsequently, the two Canadian Michael's, got caught up in it and were arrested on so called "serious charges" while they were in China.
Re: (Score:2)
I forgot to include these links on why the Canadian judge overseeing the case thought the charges weren't clear enough to proceed :
https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/... [chinadaily.com.cn]
https://www.theglobeandmail.co... [theglobeandmail.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People don't appreciate how upset China was about it.
And being upset makes it okay for them to hold other foreign nationals hostage?
Re: (Score:2)
And being upset makes it okay for them to hold other foreign nationals hostage?
Yes, that is how the game is played.
You take one of my family hostage: I take one of yours, preferable two. So you grasp we are talking serious business.
Or what exactly where the legal reasons the CFO of Huawei was "taken hostage"? Or how exactly do you call it when a foreign citizen gets put in jail - albeit with certain freedoms - on behalf of another's foreign nation request: without any legal reason!!??
Oh, you want to tell us
Re: Oh come on (Score:1)
Uh, yes it was.
Don't think that all people around the world have the same degenerate worldview as the Americans.
Maybe that's the reason you guys managed to lose every single war in the least 80 years....
Re:Oh come on (Score:4, Interesting)
Then when did the Canadian foreign intelligence congratulate them on their release and "coming home" on Twitter (now hastily removed, but still circulating as screenshots around the net). I would have understood congratulations from their Foreign Affairs, their MP, even the PM. But... Foreign intelligence?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
CSIS is allowed to welcome back two political prisoners and if they really were spies, why did China immediately release them after Meng was released? China isn't even pretending they weren't hostages at this point.
Also, the CSIS posts are still up [twitter.com] so I don't know where you got the "hastily removed" bit from.
Re: (Score:1)
Same reason can be said why did they release Meng? US basically made a hostage deal because Canada was getting pissed off at the US because of their fuck up. It's pretty clear that Trump wanted to use Meng as a bargaining chip. The legacy of such a decision was causing huge diplomatic issues not only between US and China, but Canada and US, as well as Canada and China.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
why did China immediately release them after Meng was released?
Because that was the quid pro quo they had agreed to for the release of Ms. Meng.
Re: (Score:2)
o instead of the US and Canada showing that they had some spine, we folded
USA and Canada illegally to the CFO of Huwaii as hostage. Of course it took some spine to release her.
Oh, you mean the other spine, whee you execute her?
and probably traded some other stuff too. I'm only curious what else we gave away.
You gave away your dignity, and the fame of being a country of law, when you took her hostage. That is what you gave away.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice to see that China's astroturfers dig this deep into threads. Good that they're getting their money's worth.
Re: Oh come on (Score:1)
Nah, you just have your head too high up your own ass to understand anything beyond what Fox or MSNBC spoonfed you
China bad, we good...hurr durr
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, so you confirm: being a state of law is nothing important for you?
It is oki to randomly take a foreign person hostage? For no real reason?
Re:Oh come on (Score:5, Insightful)
While is sucked for the two Canadians who were jailed in China, let's be just a little bit honest here: The US extradition demand against the Chinese woman, that caused her to be detained in Canada, was also total crap. She (a Chinese citizen) was accused of having discussion in Hong Kong (which in in China), with another Chinese company and a British bank. This involved selling goods to Iran. The US had embargoed Iran, but nowhere is that binding on a Chinese citizen or a Chinese company.
Now, the claim is that she tried to deceive the British bank. If that is true (and it seems unlikely - HSBC is not dumb - more likely they got caught with their fingers in the pie), then that would be something for the British to complain about. However, again, we are talking about a Chinese citizen, working with a Chinese company, holding discussions in China. There was zero basis for a US extradition request, when she happened to travel to Canada.
So China applied some equally abusive counterpressure, by arresting those two Canadian citizens. Not nice, but a fair response to US bullying. Canada should have laughed the extradition request out of court on day 1.
Re: (Score:1)
She (a Chinese citizen) was accused of having discussion in Hong Kong (which in in China), with another Chinese company and a British bank. This involved selling goods to Iran. The US had embargoed Iran, but nowhere is that binding on a Chinese citizen or a Chinese company.
you're wrong, it's binding because she's selling US technology with export control.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The two Michaels (Score:5, Informative)
China is telling Canada to learn a lesson [www.cbc.ca] from the Meng Wanzhou case.
Yes, the lesson is that the CCP is a criminal organization prone to hostage-taking if that's what it takes to get its way. And the lesson is that unless all democracies stand up to this criminal gang, it will succeed in dividing and conquering, and in subverting democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
the lesson is that the CCP is a criminal organization prone to hostage-taking
The lesson is that the CCP is not afraid of criminal organization prone to hostage-taking [cnn.com] and will retaliate equally, unlike the weak puppets such as France [amazon.com] and Japan [globaltimes.cn] who had succumbed to its gang boss' kidnapping.
Re: (Score:2)
"Retaliate"? So we're in some fucking law of the jungle world of international relations?
The reality is that the CCP is the world's biggest criminal gang, not to mention other little things like genocide against the Uyghurs.
Re:The two Michaels (Score:5, Insightful)
Canada simply acted on a legal request according to the law, per a request to extradite Meng for fraud against sanctions.
The two Michaels were released within hours [bbc.com] of Meng's deal, despite being 'convicted' for spying, and imprisoned for over 1,000 days ...
China insisted all along that their case was never connected to Meng's case.
She was staying in two mansions in Vancouver, wearing an ankle monitor. They were basically in solitary confinement with barely edible food. A private plane was waiting for her while she had a court hearing in Vancouver.
Oh, and now China claims that they were released for health reasons [www.cbc.ca] ...
Hostage diplomacy ...
Re: (Score:2)
And the lesson is that unless all democracies stand up to this criminal USA gang, it will succeed in dividing and conquering, and in subverting democracy.
Fixed that for you.
Perhaps you should read up for what dumb ass reason the Huwaii CFO got "imprissioned"?
Re: (Score:2)
How much does the CCP pay you? Or are you in China so you have to do their will or else disappear?
Re: (Score:2)
They do not pay me anything to be objective instead of being a dumb USA puppy.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems the lesson is pretty clear.
Don't take one of our people hostage, or we'll take two of yours.
Maybe all countries can learn from this and find better ways of dealing with each other.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
At this point anyone who travels to China is just being a full retard, it's North Korea tier.
Re: The two Michaels (Score:2)
As an American living in China I just gotta say, don't knock it till you tried it.
Basically the only way I am getting locked up is if I break their drug laws. Did you ever wonder why these two individuals were selected?
China is great for what it is, it's America that's a boiling cesspool.
Re: (Score:2)
Ignoring the chance of being taken hostage for Pooh's day to day blackmail needs, if Pooh ever goes full Hussein and misjudges the US actions if he tries to blockade Taiwan and acts on that you really don't want to get stuck in China.
Re: (Score:1)
You mean if the US misjudges CHINA's actions. It's the US in China's neighborhood. Not the other way around. For China, it's seen as defensive because of US actions are in THEIR neck of the woods, on THEIR coasts. In the US, it's a tyrant trying to put his foot down all over the world on people's necks, with countries yelling I can't breathe. In this case it's the fears of the US stomping on China's neck in regards to the Malacca straits where all of China's oil, energy, etc goes through. It's the US
Re: (Score:2)
It's a bingo. Wish I could mod you up despite posting as an AC.
The only question I have, is that I am pretty sure gunboat diplomacy has been going on longer than a decade though it clearly has intensified as a manner to antagonize China.
Re: The two Michaels (Score:2)
Taiwan has been threatened with nukes if they change their name to republic of Taiwan, the one China charade is maintained to pacify China.
Re: (Score:2)
Literally if that happens, I will declare I want political asylum and I will use references like this to justify my position.
I will renounce my citizenship as well.
China is not going to randomly blockade Taiwan or invade it. You simply do not understand how the CCP maintains power. The only reason this outcome is even possible is via international invention in Taiwan such as actions by the US and the US government would back the fuck down if it happened anytime in the next few centuries because our supply c
Re: (Score:2)
Well aren't you the optimist, but don't you see the problem with having to pre-emptively suck up to Pooh and China? You have to pretend China not only has a technical territorial claim on Taiwan but even a moral claim even though Taiwanese have now democratically ruled themselves for nearly half a century?
I know you don't really think China has a moral claim in Taiwan, but you have to pretend they do so in the future it might safeguard your position in China. I'd rather stay in the ideologically and demogra
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have to suck up. It's like nationalism, people who love their country aren't sucking up and there is very much I genuinely love about China.
It's funny you anti-china folk are all of the same broken record, it's always about the 3 Ts or something equally as pedantic. Taiwan is a piece of a game in the larger scope of westerners trying to influence Asia. More so just like Japan, these are nationalists, and there sense of democracy is but a thin veil -- one simply to get your rocks off as a westerner (
Next time someone says China is Communist... (Score:5, Interesting)
Remember this corporatocratic cyberpunk shit right here, where they treat executives at their megacorporations like members of the royal family and take hostages to dissuade other countries from prosecuting them.
It wasn't wrong to arrest Meng Wanzhou, it was everything that happened afterward that was (Trump repeatedly more-than-hinting that it would all go away if China made concessions in his stupid-ass trade war / China taking hostages / Western powers letting her go free to release the hostages if she pinky swears not to flagrantly violate international sanctions again).
Re: (Score:2)
It was wrong to arrest her, the charges were BS.
It also had the effect of making China redouble efforts to replace US financial services, so that US jurisdiction can't be used in this way.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember this corporatocratic cyberpunk shit right here, where they treat executives at their megacorporations like members of the royal family and take hostages to dissuade other countries from prosecuting them.
confused, are you talking about the US or China? hopefully both.
Re: (Score:1)
I have little doubt such an understanding exists
Re: (Score:1)
AG Garland will trade not indicting Hunter Biden for a seat on the Supreme Court.
What, exactly, is wrong with your brains? Garland was already a nominee for the Supreme Court who was denied the position due to sleazy political maneuvering and a ridiculous lie (that there was somehow something problematic about appointing a Supreme Court justice in an election year). If an opening in the court came up, he would not have to trade anything for the job, he's basically a shoe-in for the nomination.
Re: (Score:2)
Heh. Look, a downmod. -1 Flamebait. I mean, I suppose I deserve it for responding to flamebait.
Re: (Score:2)
SCOTUS nominations are political giveaways to a constituency or individual. Garland is in no-way a shoe-in unless its because he is been acting as a fixer for Biden.
The political reality on the ground has changed since he was nominated last time round. Garland was a center-left choice by Obama to avoid triggering the wrath of the left flank and not alienate middle of the road voters in an election year. Right now Biden's biggest political problem is keeping the far-left wing of the party from trying some ki
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations, you almost had a point with the part about the political reality on the ground changing. I still think it would be pretty likely that he would be next up for a nomination after last time, but I could listen to a rational argument for why not. I would think that most likely reason to choose someone else would be to choose someone younger since the Republicans have made it abundantly clear that they are gaming the system as much as they possibly can. Then you went off about a coup from the fa
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Biden is the weakest, most corrupt, and most incompetent president in the history of the US. Our enemies are so happy, they can hardly contain their excitement. These are very dangerous times.
No, you are thinking of his predecessor. Also you forgot senile.
Got to pay to play (Score:2, Insightful)
And all it took to smooth the way (Score:1)
Devil abusing fine prints (Score:1)
the Iranian company Skycom was a partner of Huawei while knowing that Skycom was owned and controlled by a Huawei subsidiary to act as its agent in the region
A subsidiary, even complete owned by the parent, is a business partner because it's legally a separate entity. (That's how for example high tech companies set up foreign entities in Ireland and Cayman Islands to avoid paying taxes legally.)
Uncle Sam, being a devil of fine prints, is also abusing such fine prints to save his face.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Chinese are so happy about this (Score:1)
The Chinese are so pleased about this that they bought another one or two of Hunter's paintings.
Big surprise (Score:2)
The only surprise is that it took so long since January.