Slashdot Mirror
Canada Grants Bail For Arrested Huawei CFO Who Faces US Extradition (cnbc.com)
A judge in Vancouver, British Columbia, has set a $7.5 million U.S. bail for Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou, who was arrested last week on suspicion of violating U.S. trade sanctions against Iran. "The United States had asked the Vancouver court to deny bail for Meng, whose father is a billionaire and a founder of Huawei, calling her a flight risk," reports CNBC. From the report: Canada has been expected to extradite Meng to the United States over charges that the company improperly took payments from Iran in violation of sanctions against the country. Meng's next moves will be closely watched, but it is likely with her corporate and family connections that she will be able to make bail. The $10 million CAD ($7.5 million USD) includes $7 million CAD ($5.2 million USD) cash and $3 million CAD ($2.2 million USD) more from five or more guarantors, presented by Meng and her attorney's as sureties that she would remain in the country. As conditions of the bail agreement, Meng must surrender her passports, wear a GPS tracking device and be accompanied by security detail whenever she leaves her residence.
Pretty much this. Demanding arrest and extradition without proof is SOP for the US "justice" system. See Kim Dotcom's case. What he was charged with (tertiary copyright infringement) isn't even found in US law, yet mere "suspicion" was enough for a helicopter raid. The clowns are running the circus.
I wonder how she will pull that off, given the GPS tracker she must wear and the security team that must escort her everywhere she goes.
I get it, she's rich, but its still QUITE an operation she would have to pull in order to escape the country.
She's rich, she doesn't have to jump bail to stay out of jail. Heck, if you're rich enough you can be a pedophile and still avoid jail time.
I stole this Sig
RCMP didn't just arrest her on their own-- they were irequested by US DOJ to detain her. Now they are awaiting a formal request for extradition; if none comes, they'll let her go in 60 days.
I suspect there is a lot more wiggle room in the USA on acting on arrest warrants than there is in Canada.
US arrest warrants have no standing in Canada. Instead, there was a request issued to Canada per Article 11 of the treaty:
> (1) In case of urgency a Contracting Party may apply for the provisional arrest of the person sought pending the presentation of the request for extradition through the diplomatic channel. Such application shall contain a description of the person sought, an indication of intention to request the extradition of the person sought and a statement of the existence of a warrant or arrest or a judgment of conviction against that person, and such further information, if any, as would be necessary to justify the issue of a warrant of arrest had the offense been committed, or the person sought been convicted, in the territory of the requested State.
In Westminster systems like Canada and the UK, the charges go from the police to the prosecutorial service. It's up to the prosecutor in charge to review the evidence and charges and decide on whether or not there's a reasonable chance of success. If not, then the prosecutor then decides if a lesser charge might have a better chance (e.g., going from murder to manslaughter). If not, the case is dropped - better to drop it now where there is insufficient evidence going in than to drag out a court case wasting resources on a hopeless case.
It's why in general the prosecutors have a rather high success rate of conviction - they don't blindly take up every case they're offered and instead analyze them to see if it will meet the thresholds of conviction. Yes there will be back and forth - the prosecutor can ask the police if they have any more evidence to solidify the case.
This is also the point where the prosecutors do their best to analyze how the evidence was gathered to ensure the defense can't pull a "tainted evidence" defense that discards key evidence.
It's not a perfect system because it can mean people go free due to lack of evidence right from the get-go (though usually the prosecution also directs when the police may arrest someone, so something like this won't end up with a double jeopardy situation). And it can mean really long delays between the crime and arraignmet, charges and the eventual trial.
It's also why a jury trial is optional - the defense has a choice, but in general jury trial conviction rates are even higher than a judge only trial.