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.
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.
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.
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.