Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Crime

Report Claims Huawei Finance Chief Meng Wanzhou Could Be Set Free In Exchange of Admitting Guilt (www.cbc.ca) 43

Posted by BeauHD from the resolving-criminal-charges dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CBC.ca: The U.S. Justice Department is talking to representatives of Meng Wanzhou about a potential deal that would allow the Chinese telecom executive to return home from Canada in exchange for signing a deferred prosecution agreement admitting criminal wrongdoing, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal. Meng, the chief financial officer of Huawei Technologies Co., was detained in December 2018 while she was changing planes in Vancouver. She was arrested on a U.S. extradition request over allegations she lied to a Hong Kong banker in August 2013 about Huawei's control of a subsidiary that's accused of violating U.S. sanctions against Iran. She has consistently denied the charges against her.

Shortly after that arrest, Canadians Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor were detained in China, where they remain in detention and face charges of spying for Canada. The report also says the proposed deal could pave the way for China to return Kovrig and Spavor, which is a factor that is in part motivating the discussions, according to the paper's sources. In a report in the Wall Street Journal -- which CBC had not independently verified -- sources say the agreement with Meng would require her to admit to criminal wrongdoing. The newspaper reports that if she does that, U.S. prosecutors would defer the charges against her, and could even drop them at a later date.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Report Claims Huawei Finance Chief Meng Wanzhou Could Be Set Free In Exchange of Admitting Guilt More

Report Claims Huawei Finance Chief Meng Wanzhou Could Be Set Free In Exchange of Admitting Guilt

Comments Filter:

  • The Truth Shall Set You Free (Score:3)

    by zenlessyank ( 748553 ) on Friday December 04, 2020 @07:22PM (#60795936)

    Then it will lock you up on different charges!

    • Re:The Truth Shall Set You Free (Score:4, Insightful)

      by PsychoSlashDot ( 207849 ) on Friday December 04, 2020 @07:57PM (#60796002)

      Then it will lock you up on different charges!

      Yeah, it's pretty crappy. "We can't provide sufficient evidence of your wrongdoing that another country will hand you over, so we'll stop asking if you just say you're guilty." Disgusting. Either prove to us (Canada) that extradition is appropriate, or drop it all. And if you weren't scummy, compensate her somehow for two years of detention.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by rtb61 ( 674572 )

        More simply, admit guilt or you will remain locked up. So straight up extortion that the Canadian and US governments colluded in, first as trade extortion and when that failed, just an attempt to create a media public relations lie based around a publicly 'FORCED' confession, agree or remain locked up apparently forever.

        Sign, get out and publicly declare you were extorted into signing and will be seeking legal reparations against the Canadian government, including loss of revenue, slander and false imprison

        • More simply, admit guilt or you will remain locked up.

          She won't be locked up much longer before it all falls apart. Only one person in the world really cares about that, and that won't matter very shortly.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by mark-t ( 151149 )
          Once the US had made the request to the RCMP to detain her in Vancouver, Canada had a legal obligation under its treaties with the US to try and do so.
        • Compensation? I guess if they release and 'compensate' the two Canadians they have locked up in retaliation.

          China can go fuck itself.

      • Re:The Truth Shall Set You Free (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anubis IV ( 1279820 ) on Saturday December 05, 2020 @03:29AM (#60796704)

        Yeah, it's pretty crappy. "We can't provide sufficient evidence of your wrongdoing that another country will hand you over, so we'll stop asking if you just say you're guilty." Disgusting. Either prove to us (Canada) that extradition is appropriate, or drop it all.

        You seem to be somewhat unaware that they successfully proved it months ago and that she’s currently scheduled to be extradited in April.

        The reason she’s still in Canada has nothing to do with a lack of proof. Rather, it’s the same reason it’s been all along: she’s fighting tooth and nail to stay there.

        To address a few other things...
        1) Contrary to your assertion that she’s been in detention for two years, she’s actually been out on bail this entire time.

        2) Before an extradition can take place, a hearing needs to happen (which is also where America would present the proof you’re asking for), but her team of lawyers filed a number of motions designed to delay the hearing for as long as possible. Had they not done so, the hearing would have commenced in early 2019, shortly after the US formally requested the extradition.

        3) Having run out of delay tactics, the case finally went to court earlier this year, at which point the evidence was presented and Canadian prosecutors were able to argue that Meng’s alleged actions were not just illegal under US law, but also under Canadian law (so-called “double criminality”). The judge presiding over the case agreed and concluded the hearing with a determination that the extradition should proceed.

        4) Since then, Meng’s lawyers have made a number of additional allegations designed to drag the process out as long as possible. Her extradition has been delayed while those get sorted out, but her case is currently scheduled to conclude in April 2021, barring any additional delays.

        5) America has no incentive to drag this out. Quite the contrary, your courts already ruled in America’s favor, so America has every reason to speed this process along as quickly as possible so as to gain more political lev...err...bring Meng to justice. The only reason the Canadian wheels of justice are turning slowly is because she wants to drag this out, presumably in the hope political winds may change. As they are.

        Which is to say, while I’m not a fan of politically motivated machinations, it’s clear the US had enough dirt on her to convince a Canadian court that extradition was warranted, despite what you would have us believe.

        As a final note, I find it rather worrying that you apparently think so little of your own country that you actually believed it had kept someone locked up for two years while depriving them of their right to have their day in court. Your country did no such thing. The fact that you would falsely make such grievous allegations against your own country without first validating any of those claims should be cause for some serious self reflection.

        • The fact that you think so highly of your own country, giving it the right to persecute people worldwide for alleged crimes committed abroad and which had nothing to do with them, worries you not?

          And the so called evidence is only an excerpt of a PowerPoint presentation.

          So, fuck off and keep out of other countries

          • The fact that you think so highly of your own country

            I do? Which part of my obvious sarcasm in “America has every reason to speed this process along as quickly as possible so as to gain more political lev...err...bring Meng to justice” or my explicit statement of “I’m not a fan of politically motivated machinations” gave you that impression?

            giving it the right to persecute people worldwide for alleged crimes committed abroad

            That’s called an extradition treaty. They’re common between most countries. It’s actually more notable when countries don’t have extradition treaties with others.

            and which had nothing to do with them

            You se

  • The summary omits a key piece of information [wsj.com] in the news item:

    Ms. Meng has so far resisted the proposed deal, believing she did nothing wrong, some of the people said.

    The reason it got omitted is not hard to guess.

    As on the deal itself, it is just another example of American Trap [amazon.com].

  • If the USA was so sure they have a fraud* case then she should be tried. If it was all political then as a Canadian, I would expect serious harm in Canada/US relations. The fact that China took 2 hostages should mean that there can be no thought of letting her off for political reasons. If we do that then every Canadian will be at risk of being taken hostage in the future.

    *Meng Wanzhou is being charged with fraudulently claiming her company was not violating US sanctions to a group of investors. The s
    • What is also wrong is the base of all this: the extraterritorial sanctions imposed by the US. There is no international agreement supporting this, and a lot of opposition to it even from American allies.

      Under international law the US can prevent its own companies from dealing with Iran. But it has no right to tell companies from other countries what to do. So how can someone be arrested based on this?
    • Actually the conveyor of extraterritorial sanctions is quite a problem for some European countries, especially regarding the Iran treaty.
      The whole Iran story is just crazy. Why did the US chose to see Iran as bad and make Saudi Arabia its ally? There is no good and evil in this conflict, both countries use similar methods. Both are too religious, but Iran is more developed and still more democratic than Saudi Arabia.
  • Public confessions and show trials used to be something the west shunned. So it has come to this. It's a big mistake. The entire exercise was a small piece in a trade war: we can take your daughter if we want to. That was bad enough. But this?
  • Anyone else see this as the US trying to strong-arm Meng Wanzhou?

    If there's not sufficient evidence to extradite her, there's not sufficient evidence to hold her for extradition. China's on Canada's case because we're abiding by our own extradition treaty with the US, whose using it in bad faith. Might be time to set her free.

  • No matter how you side (when you should never "side"), this goes against all morals and what can be considered a legitimate legal system.

    PROTIP: His guilt does not change with any "admitting" by him, let alone forced, but only with *EVIDENCE*. Call me when yo got any, you Gestapo legal system!

    YOU ARE LITERALLY DOING WHAT YOU ACCUSE CHINA OF.
    And yes, I think China does this too. But now I know you do this too.

  • a potential deal that would allow the Chinese telecom executive to return home from Canada in exchange for signing a deferred prosecution agreement admitting criminal wrongdoing

    This sounds like the very definition of a coerced confession. I'm genuinely curious: is there an explanation as to how this is constitutional and would not be a coerced confession?

    • I'm genuinely curious: is there an explanation as to how this is constitutional and would not be a coerced confession?

      Just a wild guess: she's not a U.S. citizen, and she's not within U.S. borders; so the U.S. Constitution doesn't apply to her.

  • What happened to presumed innocent until proven false?

    I really read the headline assuming this happened in China. Not a "modern democracy". I am serious, there were many reports of such things happening in China before, it took a while to realize this was actually Canada doing the thing.

    You had your chance to prove guilt, you failed, just say sorry and release her.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by SETY ( 46845 )

      It doesn’t have much to do with Canada. It could have been any western nation that honours its treaties and has an airport. This all happened because the USA filed some paperwork. And arguable because she committed a crime.

Slashdot Top Deals

Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce

Close