Slashdot Mirror


Huawei's CFO Is Being Accused of Fraud, and Her Main Defense Is a PowerPoint (theverge.com)

"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."

121 comments

  1. Did she keep a calendar? by haruchai · · Score: 3, Funny

    Without it, Brett Kavanagh's chances would have been boofed

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    1. Re:Did she keep a calendar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being accused of lying under oath repeatedly is such a Devil's Triangle for such an honorable Alumnius. Thank God they gave him a lifetime appointment so sober up a bit. Those robes can be dry cleaned I'm sure.

    2. Re:Did she keep a calendar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to click "Post anonymously."

    3. Re: Did she keep a calendar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Where is the proof that he lied?

    4. Re: Did she keep a calendar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where is the proof that boof doesn't mean anal sex in 80's parlance? (I actually do remember that) Where is the proof that devil's triangle isn't a drinking game?

      Do you know what proof looks like? Proof is all around your face, gooey like.

    5. Re: Did she keep a calendar? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 0
      Kavanaugh, 2006, under oath:

      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:

      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.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. Re: Did she keep a calendar? by mlyle · · Score: 1

      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.

    7. Re: Did she keep a calendar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Shouldn't the requirement for SC judges be a little bit higher than just "He isn't a convicted criminal because the investigation was intentionally limited to not look into the things he was accused of."?

      Like, if you were looking for a regular office job the circumstances around him and his behavior during the interview would be enough to not hire him and go for someone else instead.

      Kavanaugh got the job based on his previous statements that the President should be allowed to get away with crimes.

    8. Re: Did she keep a calendar? by Anonymous Coward · · 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 to overturn Roe v. Wade) and he was Kennedy's pick. But keep it up with the conspiracy theories.

    9. Re: Did she keep a calendar? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    10. Re: Did she keep a calendar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where is the proof Huawei's CFO committed fraud?

    11. Re: Did she keep a calendar? by gtall · · Score: 1

      Ah the Russia Investigation where upon the Big Question is: What did the President know and when did he stop knowing it?

    12. Re:Did she keep a calendar? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      IT was all a distraction. He should have been rejected because his logic is weak and his writing poor.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    13. Re: Did she keep a calendar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me guess, you are a chinese supporter of all their theft and fraud

    14. Re:Did she keep a calendar? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      In other words, you don't like him. Got it.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    15. Re: Did she keep a calendar? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's exactly right (although he seems fine at a personal level). There are definitely other judges who are more skillful when it comes to the law.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    16. Re: Did she keep a calendar? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    17. Re: Did she keep a calendar? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    18. Re: Did she keep a calendar? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Agreed

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    19. Re: Did she keep a calendar? by haruchai · · Score: 1

      "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.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    20. Re: Did she keep a calendar? by haruchai · · Score: 1

      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

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    21. Re: Did she keep a calendar? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    22. Re: Did she keep a calendar? by haruchai · · Score: 1

      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...

      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 much more money at them than the public purse.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    23. Re: Did she keep a calendar? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  2. A----haahahaha....ghahahahahaa.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Judge : NEXT!

    1. Re: A----haahahaha....ghahahahahaa.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regardless the petty nature of lots of things going on completely belies the significance of any of your argument

  3. I use PowerPoints as defense too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Your honor I could not have been selling pot, I was making this PowerPoint of Cheetos

  4. Forget it Meng. It's not Chinatown. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah unless that Powerpoint has the digits to a private Caymans account with 100 million in it, you ain't talking your way out of this one.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b89BwXF5PFM - I did find this semi-related video though.

    1. Re: Forget it Meng. It's not Chinatown. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, sheâ(TM)s the financial lead for Chinaâ(TM)s equivalent of Cisco. $100 million? Sure, It very well might.

  5. PowerPoint foils: Is there ANYTHING they can't do? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    The Earth is flat and the Moon landings were faked! Here, let me show you this PowerPoint presentation as proof!
    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 glove doesn't fit, you must acquit! Here, let me show you this PowerPoint presentation as proof!

  6. Pray away the gray by Tablizer · · 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.)

    1. Re:Pray away the gray by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Or, it was written by an Asgard wearing a wig.

    2. Re:Pray away the gray by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.)

      I hate that the silhouettes have been stylised to that weird simplistic round bust oblivion. This started with MS Messenger, I think. IIRC the ever-popular America online IM hadn't been affected and had the little yellow running man carrying the blue AOL Triforce. ICQ in turn had used various kinds of color palettes around their iconic green-petaled flower logo.

      But then MS started pushing the busts where at some point before this decade's gender identity fiasco were not ashamed of presenting a binary sex. I recall Outlook switched to some bland sexless gray busts as a result of the gender-fluidity thing. Now that nobody is bothering to upload avatars or take pictures of their friends to embelish their face-preview caller-ID on personal smartphone address books, Office apps and Google (at least) are giving people an avatar based on their initial(s) turned into a bit-mapped letter.

      I enjoy forums that do fun things like the Stackexchange's hashing your email address to a programmatic pixelart avatar (before all the picture-freaks flooded the place) and sites that give each anonymous commentor a different kiddie doodle based on some kind of hash.

      Micopi+ from f-droid let me go thru my Android address book contacts a slightly more colorful lettered avatar. I find the swirly color contrasts as random backgrounds to be the whole point of the customization and it's a pain that the spotlight base on which it forces the letter initialism for your contact's name is sooo prominent

  7. Chicom fraud by WCMI92 · · Score: 1

    That is not any kind of a surprise.

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
  8. This is nonsensical by Volatile_Memory · · Score: 1

    I just read the article twice and Iâ(TM)m still very confused. But then again, I am also very drunk.

    --

    /**
    I have a "Zero Policy" tolerance.
    */

    1. Re:This is nonsensical by Sarten-X · · Score: 2, 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:

      • 1) Is SkyCom actually Huawei? The business ties seem to be close, but whether it's considered a separate entity enough that Huawei wouldn't be responsible is a complicated question, and likely needs more evidence than is available now.
      • 2) Whether Huawei (as a company) knew that SkyCom was dealing with Iran while Huawei was dealing with the US. If Huawei knew, then it's a pretty easy fraud case. If not, then there's really no case, because U.S. law is not enforceable on Chinese companies (despite the theories of the tinfoil-hat crowd).

      In short, her defense is saying that Huawei didn't know about SkyCom's dealings, and they're presenting an internal slideshow as evidence that Huawei (as a company) thought it wasn't violating sanctions. Even if that slide's statement is incorrect, it may be enough to start pushing the idea that Huawei was acting in good faith while talking with the U.S. banks.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    2. Re:This is nonsensical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2) Whether Huawei (as a company) knew that SkyCom was dealing with Iran while Huawei was dealing with the US. If Huawei knew, then it's a pretty easy fraud case.

      NO, unless the specific company is also sanctioned then simply knowing that company is doing business with Iran is not relevant. The only part that is relevant is whether Skycom is actually a part of Huawei.

    3. Re:This is nonsensical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2) Whether Huawei (as a company) knew that SkyCom was dealing with Iran while Huawei was dealing with the US. If Huawei knew, then it's a pretty easy fraud case.

      NO, unless the specific company is also sanctioned then simply knowing that company is doing business with Iran is not relevant. The only part that is relevant is whether Skycom is actually a part of Huawei.

      I actually do have yearly training that touches on some of this, but never get close to using any of it and it was about a year ago. That being said, I think there may be a requirement on Huawei's part to not do business if they know or suspect they would be doing an export violation indirectly. Ordinarily that law wouldn't mean much to her, unless she stepped someplace with an extradition treaty, which she did.

      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.

    4. Re:This is nonsensical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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. And they've obviously been going after huawei for a good bit, spreading agitprop and having other countries refrain from doing business with huawei too. Obviously they've pissed off some major critters somewhere in the swamp.

      I have no say in whether it plays out but while entirely in character for the USA it doesn't paint its own portrait any rosier. The "A" is for "Assholes". That remains the case even should it turn out huawei deserved everything it got. And that's the crux: "Justice" done wrong is not Justice, but petty bullying. You're certainly good at that.

    5. Re:This is nonsensical by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      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 whether a particular case deserves outrage is to use (to borrow a ridiculous phrase), alternative facts. Change anything irrelevant, and see if you still have the same moral conflicts. If changing some trivial detail changes your judgement of the situation, it's a sign of prejudice.

      From a legal standpoint, let's suppose that instead of Mrs. Meng, we have Mr. Smith. Instead of working financial deals, Mr. Smith sells real estate. Instead of promising compliance, Mr. Smith promises ownership of a nice little imaginary villa in the Mediterranean. Instead of (allegedly) lying to banks, Mr. Smith lies to potential buyers. Now, Mr. Smith was silly and/or ignorant enough to be found in Canada, which has laws against fraud. None of his scams have happened to affect Canadians, but Canada has agreed that fraud is bad regardless of who it impacts, and has arrested Mr. Smith based on the evidence provided.

      Is it still morally wrong to prosecute Mr. Smith for his fraud? Should a crime be forgiven just because the perpetrator happened to be in another country from their victim?

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    6. Re: This is nonsensical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This will go away when China invests in another Trump amusement park. And maybe one of his kids needs another trademark approved.

    7. Re:This is nonsensical by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      "...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.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  9. I use Clippy for defense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It got me 20 instead of 10.

  10. Re:PowerPoint foils: Is there ANYTHING they can't by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    If the developers had realized how versatile PowerPoint was as a proof bringer, there's a fair chance everything would be proven... kind of like any belief set on the internet... oh, wait.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  11. Re:PowerPoint foils: Is there ANYTHING they can't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lies, damn lies, statistics, and PowerPoints, the devil's media.

  12. The defense raps by SuperKendall · · Score: 1, Funny

    If my PowerPoint's Da Shit, you must Acquit!

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  13. High school letter by jader3rd · · Score: 1

    That's like being in high school, and writing a letter saying that you have your parents permission to not need your parents permission for things.

  14. I don't think I'd want to be an American in China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Especially if I were involved in some high tech industry or IP transfer. How many Americans will be needed to trade for one Chinese high tech company officer?

  15. Why would she need a defence? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    1. Re:Why would she need a defence? by haruchai · · Score: 1, 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

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    2. Re:Why would she need a defence? by Aighearach · · Score: 0

      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.

    3. Re:Why would she need a defence? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    4. Re:Why would she need a defence? by Archtech · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    5. Re:Why would she need a defence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is nothing.

      The thousands that are being imprisoned at the southern border aren't even getting a trial or an opportunity to show if they are US citizens or not.
      Given that it is more or less kidnapping, those responsible can't ever let anyone get out.

      It is pretty much a Guantanamo situation where the only solution is to let everyone who is wrongly imprisoned die in prison to avoid any problem with them trying to get some semblance of justice.

    6. Re:Why would she need a defence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you get paid 50 cents for this?

      They have ample proof that "a Hong Kong-based company called Skycom did business with Iran between 2009 and 2014." That's not in dispute.

      Meng was on Skycorp's board of directors. That's not in dispute.

      Meng was Huawei's CFO and Huawei did business with US banks. That's not in dispute.

      The case hinges on if they can prove that "Skycom was an unofficial subsidiary of Huawei's, using the same company logo." And that's what's in dispute. You won't get to see that evidence until some time after Meng and her lawyers get to look it over and it's presented at court. If there was no suspicion, the judge wouldn't have issued the warrant for her arrest.

      You're pushing really blatant Chinese nationalistic propaganda and it's embarrassing.

    7. Re:Why would she need a defence? by dcw3 · · Score: 2

      Repeating your lie won't make it true...

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      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 Kozlowski, former CEO of Tyco Serving 8 to 25 years for stealing $134 million from Tyco
      John Rigas, former CEO of Adelphia Communications Serving 25 years for bank, wire, and securities fraud related to the demise of Adelphia
      Sanjay Kumar, former CEO of Computer Associates Serving 12 years for obstruction of justice and securities fraud
      Walter Forbes, former CEO of Cendant Serving 12 years for fraud
      Richard Scrushy, former CEO of HealthSouth Serving 7 years for bribery and mail fraud
      Joseph Nacchio, former CEO of Qwest Communications
      Serving 6 years for insider trading
      Sam Waksal, former CEO of ImClone Served 7 years for securities fraud (released last year)
      Martin Grass, former CEO of Rite Aid Served 6 years for fraud and obstruction (just released this year)

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  16. $1 million bail is a joke by Snotnose · · Score: 2

    She's worth much more than that, plus dad and/or the Chinese government will pay part of it. Guilty or innocent, put me in her place and I'm running home to China first chance I get.

    1. Re:$1 million bail is a joke by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    2. Re:$1 million bail is a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You might flee, such a high profile Chinese person would almost certainly not. The risk to her family back home (unlike America being rich doesn't protect you in China) and the embarrassment would be too much.

    3. Re:$1 million bail is a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (unlike America being rich doesn't protect you in China)

      ROFL

    4. Re:$1 million bail is a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Xi has thrown thousands in Jail for fraud and money laundering. Everyone from top politicians and military officials to movie stars and executives. Xi is a bastard but at least he dishes it out equally regardless of your rank in society,.

    5. Re:$1 million bail is a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      “Xi has thrown thousands of political enemies in Jail for fraud and money laundering charges

      See, fixed that for you.

    6. Re:$1 million bail is a joke by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      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.

    7. Re:$1 million bail is a joke by Archtech · · Score: 1

      “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..."?

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    8. Re:$1 million bail is a joke by dk20 · · Score: 1

      Let me guess. Yet another person who probably doesnt even own a passport posting negative stories about China?

      Go back to FOX news.

    9. Re:$1 million bail is a joke by gtall · · Score: 1

      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?

    10. Re:$1 million bail is a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An owner of a Chinese passport would not post such an allegation. Too high risk of a revenge from the government.

    11. Re:$1 million bail is a joke by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      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.

    12. Re: $1 million bail is a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this were even remotely true the rampant theiving sponsored by the gov and companies to such an extreme level wouldnâ(TM)t exist.

    13. Re:$1 million bail is a joke by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Google is your friend...please use it.
      https://www.businessinsider.co...

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    14. Re:$1 million bail is a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should look it up first before making false accusations.
      https://www.businessinsider.co...
      https://www.theatlantic.com/in...

    15. Re:$1 million bail is a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I take the current Chinese Communist Party as a troubling threat to me and mine.

      I practice Falun Dafa; my family and I have been seen at Falun Dafa events world-wide, including being filmed and photographed by Party officials at events throughout the world advocating for justice for fellow practitioners killed and tortured for their faith since July 1999.

      Friends of mine, also known advocates, have been held, and tortured, in "re-education camps" over the past 19 years. To this day, my wife refuses to go to any of the "Bodies" exhibits, for fear that she might recognize some Falun Dafa friend 'disappeared' in Party custody around the place and time the exhibit places were supposedly created.

      A government in thrall to a political organization which meets spiritual faith with genocide is not one I'd trust, for now, to play by any rules or social constrains.

    16. Re:$1 million bail is a joke by Archtech · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    17. Re:$1 million bail is a joke by dcw3 · · Score: 2

      From the linked article...
      "One of China's elite prisons has become overcrowded with political prisoners..."

      From https://freedomhouse.org/blog/...
      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...

      Do you need more, or are you a Chinese troll?

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  17. World Policing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Huawei did nothing wrong.

  18. Doing it wrong. Not defensive, offensive by raymorris · · Score: 1

    If her defense is PowerPoint, she's doing it backwards.
    PowerPoint isn't defensive, it's offensive. Death by PowerPoint.

  19. Oh there is proof by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Oh there is proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      There is proof, and SHE blocked us from seeing it so it must be super bad.

      Guilty.

      This is how kangaroo courts work.

      In real world fair courts, the accused should be given a chance to review the evidence for the crime, formulate a defence with lawyers, and have all shown to the judge in the courtroom.

      Only in America do you routinely parade so-called evidence in the media before the accused have any chance to review and refute them, basically having the mob decide the accused is guilty before the case even see the courtroom.

      Yeah, right, having the American mob decide she is guilty is exactly what this whole farce is about.

    2. Re:Oh there is proof by SuperKendall · · 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 process.

      I'll let you have the last word so you can gibber to yourself.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re:Oh there is proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But there's no longer any publication ban in effect, so who cares. She requested a ban, and it has been now lifted and yet we still haven't seen anything that was "super bad".

    4. Re:Oh there is proof by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Oh there is proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Go home chinese troll.

    6. Re:Oh there is proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ban was lifted Friday. It was just so she could get her footing before it was announced.

    7. Re: Oh there is proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope this is true. Itâ(TM)s time to crush the air from the lungs of theiving chinese. Iâ(TM)m not sure people realize just how bad the stealing has escalated the last few years (let alone the last 30). Theyâ(TM)re on a path towards war and itâ(TM)s time to give it them. They insert people in companies, hack....hack our gov.... Iâ(TM)m not understanding yet why we havenâ(TM)t attacked them outright yet.

    8. Re:Oh there is proof by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      It's all going to come out in future hearing(s), so that seems pretty unlikely.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    9. Re:Oh there is proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're one of the more misguided regular posters I see here. And I feel bad.. you seem smart, but have literally one of the most closed minds on this board.

  20. I'm sorry by William+Baric · · 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.

    1. Re:I'm sorry by fred911 · · Score: 2

      "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.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    2. Re:I'm sorry by Anonymous Coward · · 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 the United States have been partners against all types of dictatorships and evil. So the partnership continues and it is good for everyone. Perhaps Canada has a smaller population than the United States, but we are partners and we are in this together. The world is evil. Communist China is evil. If you deny this, then I wonder if you are really paying attention to how China controls its people.

    3. Re:I'm sorry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Except for Jordan Peterson.

    4. Re:I'm sorry by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      It's called an Extradition Treaty

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    5. Re: I'm sorry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should be sorryâ"Canada has no spine.

    6. Re:I'm sorry by Archtech · · Score: 1

      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 rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being".

      -Alexandr Solzhenitsyn (“The Gulag Archipelago”)

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    7. Re: I'm sorry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are yu going to cower like france when the next war comes and the chinese are at your border stealing natural reources and killing?

  21. Re: I don't think I'd want to be an American in Ch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is pretty true. A few years ago a Canadian businessman living in Beijing was randomly detained. The Canadian government inquired why and they basically replied "figure it out yourself."

    Finally after 9 months Canada happened to release a Chinese businessman arrested in Canada to Chinese authorities; The next day that Canadian businessman was also released. They said he was arrested for spying but the old businessman didn't even understand what the heck was going on.

    That's how they do things in the mainland.

  22. Fucked by fluffernutter · · Score: 0

    America, home of the fucked and the... no, that's it.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  23. desperate by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    Amazon... everywhere people are desperate.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  24. Google no better by Tulsa_Time · · Score: 1

    US general has a question for Google: Why will you work with China but not us?

    --
    5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
  25. end of trade with china by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this could basically end trade with china and possibly lead to war.

    China might arrest US visitors on baloney charges and this would escalate until doing business with them is too risky.

    Then China will go mad and, with Russia's help/defense, militarize ... and that can't end well.

    1. Re:end of trade with china by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's far easier to do this to Canada. Boycotts, arrests, etc. to teach the british crown colony it's place. Punish those suckers, China.

    2. Re:end of trade with china by Archtech · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    3. Re:end of trade with china by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, they have been exterminating the Uyghur people in a very calm way.

      So, does PLA pay by the hour or by the word, comrade who-Flung-dung ?

    4. Re: end of trade with china by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hilarious

  26. Useful precedent by Archtech · · Score: 4, 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...

    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

    --
    I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    1. Re:Useful precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL! We have hard time persecuting possibly the worst serial sexual predator who has been soiling all best sweet hearts. And he ain't that rich compare to fuckers you are talking about.

    2. Re:Useful precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem confused. The law is a set of rules men use to control each other. Critical to this game is precise understanding of the rules, including when and how to ignore them (O.J., D.B. Cooper, Putin/Novichok, SMB/Kashoggi) and when not to (Tim McVeigh, Manafort, Saddam Hussein, Ghadafi). Meng fucked up in exactly the way Assange has not. Assange has fewer options, but at least he understands the game. Meng apparently does not. It makes it all the more amusing that they missed Snowden. Now there's a guy who understands the ruleset!

    3. Re:Useful precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should face justice. Because a recurring theme in super rich people that fuck over a bunch of people to get rich is moving somewhere warm and far away. It isn't some kind of promised land, its code for 'I'm going to loot and run.' The occasional one being found shot in the head because they thought they could just fuck a million people over and get away with it might fix it.

  27. Useful precedent by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  28. Canadians are smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They sit with the USA, help the world fight oppression, but usually do not get blamed for the worst parts of those fights.

    They don't have to deal with direct land borders to 3rd world countries and immigrants arriving by jumping their border by the 200K/yr.

    And because Americans generally like Canadians, there is an strong connection between Canadians and Americans - both our govts and out peoples.

    The only negative about Canada that I can say is they make some of the worst TV shows/Movies anywhere. Toronto isn't NYC and neither is Vancouver. When you film there, just say it is Canada already. Get over being in the USA.

    Canada has dumb politicians, just like America does, but nobody can compete with Trump for stupidity. As a conservative American, I'm sorry for him. I didn't vote for Trump and think he needs to be jailed for life. And I'd like to see how much he's lied about wealth. Does the guy have even $5M? For all the boasting he does, seems odd that he won't prove his claimed wealth. Liar.

  29. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is enough evidence to lock her a$$ up.

    The chinese government and it's supporters has no idea about how the rule of law works in the rest of the world. Perhaps, this may be a learning moment for them/

  30. Re:Why do chinese companies follow US law? by hey! · · Score: 1

    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 through Skycom in order to skirt US legal restrictions on the banks itw as also doing business with.

    It sounds to me like it's going to be hard to make that stick, given that the proof has to do with the dealings between two foreign companies. It's not like you can raid their offices and seize the evidence of collusion, you have to rely on the documents they voluntarily offer in response to your demands. If it were a chip or a software library, sure, but we seem to be talking money here, and you can't trace that without a trail to follow.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  31. Re:I don't think I'd want to be an American in Chi by gtall · · Score: 2

    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 Chinese, (3) that Taiwan might infect the mainland with Democracy and make the Communist Party look like a band of ignorant leeches.

  32. Re:I don't think I'd want to be an American in Chi by dryeo · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  33. Re:Why do chinese companies follow US law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is war continued by other means-- an extension of the concerns about huawei as a national security concern. The "problem" with the idea that it's going to be hard to make it stick is that they can cite secret evidence that they're not allowed to review and whose source material is unreviewable because they cite national security and classified, that at least some major percentage of the time classified data is literally just something someone made up-- we assume that we have our ways of collecting information, but you can look at the history and see that the "ways" frequently includes "because someone made it up". This seems to hold particularly true in some areas more than others, for instance, most of the content about Iran is built on really flimsy innuendo and just-made-up.

    What I can't help but think is that this is basically the military battering a foreign company as an extension of domestic favoritism with a smattering of opportunism of the agenda of the day relating to Iran. Keep in mind, this is the same judiciary that couldn't find anything wrong with Madoff or similar for decades (or any of the other major frauds within their own district), its politicized court entertainment television that reaffirms the security states own rhetoric. I guess we will see, its hard to really overly judge things based on newspaper articles.

    My understanding is that the concerns about huawei equipment backdoors is that they basically include Chin'a equivalent of CALEA.

  34. MSM doesn't wear a kilt! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What makes your propaganda any better than the other propaganda? I mean, you seriously played the No True Scotsman card against news sites you don't like.

  35. Re:PowerPoint foils: Is there ANYTHING they can't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lies, statistics, and PowerPoints.
    I'm not saying it was a Devil's Triangle ...

    But it was Aliens ...

    performing a Devil's Triangle!

  36. The Americans Can Try Her by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And Canada will hand her over. On just a few, teeny, tiny conditions:

    1). Steel and aluminum tariffs go away. Forever;
    2). Softwood lumber tariffs go away. Forever;
    3). No vehicle tariffs. Ever;
    4). Trump goes away. Forever. We don't care what you do with him, but might we suggest the Jimmy Hoffa solution?
    5). Canada gets an apology for being treated disgracefully by the Trump Administration. This can be done quietly for your dignity, but we want a damn apology. In person. In Canada. From either the VP or the Prez;
    6). The Huawei CFO gets treated with diplomatic level respect. This goes beyond habeas corpus. There are diplomatic issues with China here and we are taking chances with diplomatic relations by doing this.

    Note that Canadians still care about and respect the law, unlike the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

  37. Re:I don't think I'd want to be an American in Chi by Yagwag · · Score: 1

    There is a saying about the Ancient Romans, that they created a wasteland and called it peace. But you could say something similar about the cultural impact of Genghis Khan. All of human history has been groups of humans conquering each other for land and resources with pockets of peace created by imperialism. The people you might think of as more natural were no less war-like than our ancestors were. Native American societies were filled with _warriors_ and our ancestors would have had a much harder time conquering them if it were not for bacteria from livestock. Also, Africa was filled with WARRIORS and white slavers bought their slaves from AFRICANS. Everyone conquered everyone and everyone owned slaves, that's history. Our ancestors weren't worse than the rest of humanity and modern day America certainly isn't worse than China.