Slashdot Mirror
Canada Allows US Extradition of Huawei CFO To Proceed (reuters.com)
The Canadian government has allowed for the extradition proceedings against the CFO of Huawei to proceed. "Today, department of Justice Canada officials issued an authority to proceed, formally commencing an extradition process in the case of Ms. Meng Wanzhou," the government said in a statement. Meng Wanzhou was arrested in Canada in December at the request of American authorities, who allege that she violated U.S. sanctions against Iran. From the report: China, whose relations with Canada have deteriorated badly over the affair, denounced the decision and repeated previous demands for Meng's release. Legal experts had predicted Ottawa would give the go-ahead for extradition proceedings, given the close judicial relationship between Canada and the United States. It could be years though before Meng is ever sent to the United States, since Canada's slow-moving justice system allows many decisions to be appealed. Meng's lawyers said they were disappointed and described the U.S. charges as politically motivated.
If an executive can be arrested on (if you'll excuse the term) trumped-up charges by Canada at the request of the U.S., it follows that China can and almost certainly will retaliate.
Can't get any real concessions in trade talk, continue to hold the hostage.
Canada has allowed the court proceedings to decide whether to allow extradition to commence.
The legal process could easily take a decade. Mung isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
*Grabs popcorn* I just came here for the comments...
I'm still reading through the commends waiting for someone to tell me why this is important.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
China's right on about this being a political maneuver regardless of whose responsible for said actions. China's relationship and companies thereof are outside the law of the US and Canada's jurisdiction. The US has no legitimate jurisdictional authority here and neither does Canada.
I don't have an opinion on who is in the right here, and who should prevail. This may very well be a political maneuver on the part of the US. However, I think that the US position is tenable. Let me explain why.
The US claims that Huawei, through its wholly-owned subsidiary Skycom, made misrepresentations to US-based financial firms about its activities in Iran that were in violation of US law. The US Justice and Treasury Departments announced they were investigating Huawei in April 2018.
In December 2018, Huawei's vice-chair and CFO Meng Wanzhou was arrested in Vancouver, Canada, at the request of the US. By entering a country that had an extradition treaty with the US, she imperiled herself. Canada then had to: (a) decide whether to hold an extradition hearing; (b) hold one if they decide to do so; and (c) extradite Meng Wanzhou if the hearing concludes with that decision. Canada just finished part (a).
If the argument is accepted that they do have jurisdictional authority then the US and Canada should be extraditing people to China to face charges who have never stepped foot in China for breaking a variety of laws that exist in China but that don't exist here despite people in the US breaking said Chinese laws having never even been to China.
I can accept that the US has jurisdictional authority over crimes committed within the US. And by engaging with US firms in an alleged fraudulent way, Skycom placed itself in that jurisdiction.
I suppose it could be the same if a US or Canadian person broke a Chinese law when engaging with a Chinese company. But that person would need to travel to China (or a country with an extradition treaty with China) to be subject to arrest and extradition. China has extradition treaties with about 40 countries. The US is not one of them.
Do we extradite gay people to Iran to face charges there because they interacted with someone on the internet in Iran that broke laws against homosexuality in Iran?
No, because: (a) the US and Iran do not have an extradition treaty; and (b) even if they did, there is no certainty that an extradition hearing would even happen, or if it did, that the person would be extradited. That's how extraditions work. They're not automatic. The country holding the prisoner has to decide.
On the other hand, if such a person were to travel to Iran, or to a country with an extradition treaty with Iran, I can imagine they could be arrested.
This is the kind of bullshit you get when you ignore jurisdictional boundaries and the rights of other nations and there companies to free trade. The US is being the bully here and Canada's actions are demonstrating it is an accomplice.
I don't think anyone is ignoring jurisdictional boundaries here. If Skycom had not done its banking with a US firm, I think the US would not have a tenable position.
I am reminded of an incident that happened a few years ago. A US citizen (I think) wrote something online that insulted the royalty of another country (Thailand IIRC). That US citizen subsequently went to Thailand as a tourist, and was arrested at the port of entry. I'm not sure how the case ended.
TL/DR: traveler beware. Unpleasant things can happen when your travels put you in reach of the authorities of another country who thinks you did something wrong.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Do we extradite gay people to Iran to face charges there because they interacted with someone on the internet in Iran that broke laws against homosexuality in Iran?
No, because: (a) the US and Iran do not have an extradition treaty; and (b) even if they did, there is no certainty that an extradition hearing would even happen, or if it did, that the person would be extradited. That's how extraditions work. They're not automatic. The country holding the prisoner has to decide.
I forgot to mention that I think extradition hearings often consider the question of whether the alleged offense would be considered an offense in the country holding the hearing, under similar circumstances. So for example, if Canada passed a similar law restricting trade with Iran, then the extradition hearing might consider that Meng Wanzhou likely would be charged in Canada and face trial. On the other hand, being gay is not (well, no longer?) a crime in the US, so I would assume an extradition request made on that basis would fail. (But IANAL.)
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
activities in Iran that were in violation of US law.
Right there I have a problem with this. The U.S. has no jurisdiction over actions in Iran by a non American company and non American citizens.
activities in Iran that were in violation of US law.
Right there I have a problem with this. The U.S. has no jurisdiction over actions in Iran by a non American company and non American citizens.
Arguably the US does if the non-American company involves American companies by misrepresenting their intentions. Which is what Justice and Treasury allege that Huawei/Skycom did. The "stepped a foot" as it were, into the US, and thus exposed themselves to US jurisdiction.
Again, I'm not sure of the merits of the case against Huawei. I just think the US position is tenable, though it's to be determined whether it will endure the processes that will unfold from here.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Except how hypocritical the US is with their prosecution. There are tons of examples of e.g. bank executives who probably should be guilty of fraud who weren't prosecuted in the US at ALL, despite LIVING in the US. At most, they were given a fine.
"The US rarely arrests senior businesspeople, US or foreign, for alleged crimes committed by their companies. Corporate managers are usually arrested for their alleged personal crimes (such as embezzlement, bribery, or violence) rather than their company’s alleged malfeasance. Yes, corporate managers should be held to account for their company’s malfeasance, up to and including criminal charges; but to start this practice with a leading Chinese businessperson, rather than the dozens of culpable US CEOs and CFOs, is a stunning provocation to the Chinese government, business community, and public.
Meng is charged with violating US sanctions on Iran. Yet consider her arrest in the context of the large number of companies, US and non-US, that have violated US sanctions against Iran and other countries. In 2011, for example, JP Morgan Chase paid $88.3 million in fines in 2011 for violating US sanctions against Cuba, Iran, and Sudan. Yet Jamie Dimon wasn’t grabbed off a plane and whisked into custody.
And JP Morgan Chase was hardly alone in violating US sanctions. Since 2010, the following major financial institutions paid fines for violating US sanctions: Banco do Brasil, Bank of America, Bank of Guam, Bank of Moscow, Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, Barclays, BNP Paribas, Clearstream Banking, Commerzbank, Compass, Crédit Agricole, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, ING, Intesa Sanpaolo, JP Morgan Chase, National Bank of Abu Dhabi, National Bank of Pakistan, PayPal, RBS (ABN Amro), Société Générale, Toronto-Dominion Bank, Trans-Pacific National Bank (now known as Beacon Business Bank), Standard Chartered, and Wells Fargo.
None of the CEOs or CFOs of these sanction-busting banks was arrested and taken into custody for these violations. In all of these cases, the corporation – rather than an individual manager – was held accountable. Nor were they held accountable for the pervasive lawbreaking in the lead-up to or aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, for which the banks paid a staggering $243 billion in fines, according to a recent tally. In light of this record, Meng’s arrest is a shocking break with practice. Yes, hold CEOs and CFOs accountable, but start at home in order to avoid hypocrisy, self-interest disguised as high principle, and the risk of inciting a new global conflict."
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/trump-war-on-huawei-meng-wanzhou-arrest-by-jeffrey-d-sachs-2018-12
It is world politics, leaded by the US, so it is *important*.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I am reminded of an incident that happened a few years ago. A US citizen (I think) wrote something online that insulted the royalty of another country (Thailand IIRC). That US citizen subsequently went to Thailand as a tourist, and was arrested at the port of entry. I'm not sure how the case ended.
While Thailand has laws like that, the case is most likely a myth.
How the funk would a Thai court know who exactly wrote that insulting comment? What passport he has, how he looks like?
And King Rama IX pardoned EVERY case of "insult to royalty" himself. So your citizen is save home since a while.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
On the other hand, being gay is not (well, no longer?) a crime in the US, so I would assume an extradition request made on that basis would fail. (But IANAL.) :P
Well, just saying, but using gay and IANAL in the same sentence looks rather weird to me
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
No, it isn't. It isn't important in anyway, shape, or factor. It doesn't belong on /. but for some strange reason it is. We have plenty of other "propaganda" sites that will tell us why its important, with their own brand of spin.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
From my standpoint its a classical case of "Nothing new to see here, now move along"
Huawei is a global chinese state corporation engaging in global trade for telecommunication, like ZTE.
USA as a global superpower want its trading partners to engage global trade in a way that find beneficial.
By itself, this case is similar to USA vs Megaupload's founder.
Or the alleged USA vs Assange
And a lot of cases.
So in this case, the Casus belli given is Huawei engaging in trade with Iran, where somebody found out that it must violant some US patents and IP due the way global telecommunication equipment works and are designed
So unlike Assange or Kim Dotcom, the political motivation is a bit more concrete. Even if its basically the same thing, but focused on IP law in global trade for use of RL equipment, and the manufacture and infrastructure surrounding those.
The motivation for finding a Casus belli is in this America's shaky relationship with China, for a lot of reasons. And if law's really where enforced, this would have happened sooner with far more people.
Somebody will reply to this point out that Casus belli is regarding to warfare and engaging in war.
I agree, but this is exactly how the term is used, and what it should apply this. This is essentially proxy warfare between USA and China, focused on laws and trade.
Correct.
The U.S. instead has jurisdiction over monetary transfers conducted through the U.S. banking system that were intended to violate U.S. sanctions and completed based upon fraud allegedly committed by the accused when dealing with U.S. banks.
As reported here
Now explain how the U.S. lacks jurisdiction to me once more...
We have plenty of other "propaganda" sites that will tell us why its important /.
You have, I have not. I only read
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.