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.
That was the bribe for the guard. But there were complications and now we need you to send more.
Huawei CFO facing extradition to US granted bail
By Julia Horowitz, Alberto Moya and Scott McLean, CNN Business
Updated 7:08 PM ET, Tue December 11, 2018
Vancouver, Canada (CNN Business)The chief financial officer of Chinese tech giant Huawei has been granted a $10 million ($7.5 million USD) bail, a judge in Canada ruled Tuesday.
Meng Wanzhou faces extradition to the United States, which has accused her of helping Huawei dodge sanctions on Iran. She was arrested December 1 in Canada during a layover at Vancouver International Airport.
As a condition of her release, Meng has agreed to surrender her passports and live in one of her homes in Vancouver. She will also pay for a 24-7 security detail and wear a GPS ankle bracelet.
Tuesday's decision came three days into a hearing for Meng, who is a prominent executive at one of the world's biggest makers of smartphones and networking equipment.
Meng's attorney, David Martin, argued that she should be released on bail while she waits for an extradition hearing because of health concerns. Meng has severe hypertension, for which she was hospitalized after her arrest.
At issue in court was whether Meng posed a flight risk. Martin said she did not, since her ties to Vancouver go back 15 years and she has two homes in the area. Leaving Canada would also embarrass her personally, and would humiliate her father, Huawei and China itself, Martin said.
On Tuesday, Meng's legal team proposed that the terms of her release could include financial pledges from people in Canada who know her, such as a realtor and insurance agent. Together they pledged more than $3 million ($2.2 million USD) in home equity and cash, which they'd owe if Meng flees. Her husband also offered to put up the couple's two houses in Vancouver.
The judge agreed to those terms. Of Meng's $10 million bail, $3 million of that is pledged by her sureties. The other $7 million ($5.2 million USD) is a cash deposit from Meng.
Tuesday's decision could help ease tensions between Washington and Beijing as the two sides try to negotiate an end to their bruising trade war. Her arrest had been met with consternation from Chinese officials. The Chinese Foreign Ministry said over the weekend that it had summoned both US Ambassador to China Terry Branstad and Canadian Ambassador to China John McCallum to address Meng's detention, which it described as "lawless, reasonless and ruthless."
President Donald Trump said in an interview with Reuters on Tuesday that he would intervene in the Meng case if he thought it was "good for the country." "If I think it's good for what will be certainly the largest trade deal ever made -— which is a very important thing — what's good for national security — I would certainly intervene if I thought it was necessary," Trump told Reuters.
Meng, 46, is the daughter of Huawei's founder. In addition to her role as CFO, she serves as deputy chairperson of the company's board. Huawei said in a statement that the company has "every confidence that the Canadian and US legal systems will reach a just conclusion" in the case. The company reiterated that follows all the laws and regulations where it operates.
The United States alleges that Meng helped Huawei get around US sanctions on Iran by telling financial institutions such as HSBC that a Huawei subsidiary, Skycom, was a separate and unaffiliated company.
The US Justice Department has declined to comment on the case. Meng faces "serious charges of fraud involving millions of dollars" in the United States, according to the affidavit of a Canadian law enforcement official. She could receive substantial jail time if convicted, the statement said.
The process of approving or denying Meng's extradition is expected to take months. Meng is due back in court February 6.
As soon as they granted her bail, China, no question. If the US really wanted her, they would have made arrangements to get her immediately after her arrest. Since the US didn't arrange that, then it's safe to say this was designed to be a shot across the bow at China, nothing more. But China clearly got the message. If you are a Chinese national in the United States (or Canada), you are vulnerable.
I found it so funny that they took away her passports. That only works for people who fly commercially. Chartered private planes don't require them. And with her estimated net worth at over $100 million, it won't take anything for her line up a flight direct to Beijing.
It is not Canada who cares. It is the USA and there is some extradition treaty the RCMP are bound by.
$10.00 says she is gone before New Years. Dad is a billionaire, $10 million CAD is chump change to him.
Another day closer to redwood heaven
The way bail works, is that you're eligible to be released from your current state of incarceration in exchange for a surety, usually enough cash/property to ensure with decent probability that you'll appear in court to face the music. Bail does not guarantee freedom from a criminal hold by another entity, so if you want to bet on Canadian release to China over Canadian release to America, please don't wager the light bill money.
For her sake, she'd hope the bail means release to her homeland...the Chinese gov't has already spoken publicly that they believe the incarceration is wrong. She would be welcomed home with no risk of extradition to foreign states for prosecution.
Still, betting on extradition for prosecution.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
The fact that this happened right as Trump was smoothing things out with Xi can only be explained by a willful desire by DoJ staffers to make it blow up in Trump's face. It looks like aside from John Bolton, no one in the cabinet even knew that the DoJ was planning a move that amounts to making foreign policy.
Make no mistake. This move by the DoJ during the trade negotiations was no less aggressive and "making foreign policy" than if the DoD decided to move an entire carrier battle group off the shore of one of China's disputed islands and fly half its aircraft in a very aggressive, simulated bombing run of the PLA forces stationed there.
It's Canada. They're a civilised country, so bail bondsmen are illegal.
Bet she's glad to be oot, eh?
Canadian expat here.
Dear Americans, we love you. But please, once and for all, Canadians do not say "oot." It's more like "aout" - soft 'a' followed by a rising 'o' to 'u' vowel transition, ending in a 't' consonant. Perhaps a linguist could explain it better. But it's not "oot."
Thank you.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
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.
Sanctions are actions which are taken instead of just going to war with a country
No, sanctions are taken with allies, not unilaterally. If your allies didn't agree to enforce them, you've done it wrong.
...Bombing the shit out of Iran, or sitting back and just watching them gas their own population...
That was Iraq. The US did bomb the shit out of it, and now its a hell hole.
If you don't even know which country you're talking about, I suppose there's no point in explaining how the US has spent the last 70 years or so getting it wrong in Iran every single time.
The United States practices torture. As a signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture, Canada can tell the department of justice to GFY on any extraditions. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.
But Canada (like most countries) does care about due process. They're not just going to hand her over. She'll have a hearing first to determine whether that even happens. Of course, she has to make assurances that she'll show up, hence the bail bond and agreement to monitoring in lieu of detainment in a prison cell.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Which is why I'm using this as an excuse to get out of jury duty (if I ever get asked).
"My Lord, if that man is innocent, why are we all here? If the cops believe he's guilty, that's good enough for me."
You love us?
What the fuck is wrong with you? /stockholm syndrome
Would be to release her totally and let her fly away.
At the same time, turn on the rumour machine that she's turned into a double agent as a condition of her release.
You haven't been keeping track of how the average Canadian feels about America since Trump and us being a national security threat. Though we do feel sympathy for the average American. For example, https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
But the hearing is pretty one sided. She doesn't get to make her case and all the Americans have to show is that there is a good chance of conviction. After that it is up to the Minister and this is already political, weird warrant that someone, whether an employee or Minister had to sign off on in the time between the CIA spotting her getting on a plane with a stopover in Vancouver and the plane arriving.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
The worst industrial disaster in history is the Bhopal disaster caused by Union Carbide, now a fully-owned subsidiary of Dow Chemical. Around 4,000 people died instantly, and ~ 500,000 people were injured. This is higher casualty than all the “chemical warfare” in the Middle East combined. After 5 years of litigation, Union Carbide paid $470 million to settle the case. UCC Chairman Warren Anderson was flown out of India immediately, and none of the UCC American owners and corporate officers have ever spent a day in jail.
The worst environmental disaster in history is the Exxon Valdez oil spill. 35,000 tons of oil was released close to the coastal habitat of salmon, otters, seals, and seabirds, covering 1,300 miles of coastline and 11,000 square miles of ocean. 22 orcas, 3,000 sea otters, a quarter million sea birds were wiped out. After 20 years of litigation, Exxon paid ~ $500 million in punitive damages. The boat captain got community service. None of the Exxon executives has ever spent a day in jail.
The worst financial disaster since the Great Depression is the Financial crisis of 2007–2008. Triggered by the subprime mortgage collapse in the US, DJI dropped from a high of ~ 14,000 to a trough of 6,600. The financial crisis spreat from the US to the rest of the world, wiped out an estimated $2.8 trillion from financial institutions, of which, about $1 trillion came from the US banks, and the rest from Europe and Asia. Most countries in the world have still not recovered to this day, but Wall Street was awarded $700 billion bailout immediately. Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 None of the Wall Street bankers has ever seen a day in jail.
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.
Bail-bondsmen are sketchy people, but in what way is it better to not have the option to pay a fee to have someone else front the money? If your bond is $1000 and all you can scrape up is $100, then is it better to stay in jail or pay $100 and get out and maybe keep your job, your house, etc. Either way, you're screwed. But why is having a choice in how you are screwed worse than no choice?
Because it's become standard for bail to be exorbitantly high as a result of bondsman. People who can't scrounge together $350 to pay their late parking fees get held on bails of $3000 because of the logic you outlined above.
Yes, Canada does have a difficult decision as to whether to kowtow to a foreign government that runs ethnic re-education camps and rolled tanks over its own protesting citizens.
Or it can cooperate with its immediate southern neighbor with which it shares one of the world's longest unfortified international borders, a common language, a deeply intertwined economy and a shared cultural heritage dating back centuries which includes a common language, a democratic system of government and many constitutional freedoms.
I can see where you'd find it a very hard decision for them to make and I'm sure that Canadians are very wary of sullying their clean-living international reputation by backing a totalitarian government half a world away vs. their democratic neighbor to the south.