Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts United States

Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou To Be Released After Agreement With US In Wire Fraud Case (cnbc.com) 109

Posted by BeauHD from the reached-deals dept.
The chief financial officer of Chinese tech firm Huawei will be released and allowed to return to China after reaching an agreement with the U.S. government on fraud charges, prosecutors said Friday in a Brooklyn federal court. CNBC reports: A U.S. district judge accepted the deferred prosecution agreement, which will last until Dec. 1, 2022. Under the deal, the executive, Meng Wanzhou, affirmed the accuracy of a statement of facts and agreed not to commit other crimes, or risk prosecution. Meng, the daughter of Huawei's founder, was arrested in Canada in December 2018. The U.S. sought to extradite her on bank and wire fraud charges, claiming she was misled a financial institution to violate American sanctions on Iran. The U.S. said Friday it plans to withdraw its extradition request.

Meng pleaded not guilty to the charges on Friday. As part of the agreement, however, she took "responsibility for her principal role in perpetrating a scheme to defraud a global financial institution," acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York Nicole Boeckmann said in a statement. According to Boeckmann, Meng admitted to making "multiple material misrepresentations" while CFO of Huawei about the company's business in Iran, in conversations with the senior executive of a financial institution. The government claimed she did this to continue Huawei's business relationship with the firm. Boeckmann said the admission confirms the core allegations against Meng.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou To Be Released After Agreement With US In Wire Fraud Case More

Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou To Be Released After Agreement With US In Wire Fraud Case

Comments Filter:
  • When a superpower is turning to kidnapping woman [wsws.org], falsifying accusations [knoxnews.com], and abusing laws [amazon.com] (which it has spent much of time cheering about) to please its domestic political needs and fringe commercial benefits, it is destined to be the next Rome Empire.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) *
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by AltMachine ( 8036724 )
        You need to read it again. She admitted no crime. And she is clearly forced to "confirm the statement of facts". This is exactly the same tactic used in numerous legal cases brought up by the US. Forcing you to accept minor wrongdoing to save the face of Uncle Sam and hide his act of abusing the laws.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          They just had to wait long enough until after Trump was out of office to save face.

          People often accuse the Chinese of doing things to save face, but some Western countries are just as capable.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Misrepresent doesn't mean fraud which was what they were trying to get her for. Fraud requires the listener to actually not know anything, which was more than likely false. HSBC knew everything but still went through with the deal. Meanwhile HSBC got a slap on the wrist and a small fine for violating US sanctions. This is despite the fact that they are registered in the US and US laws apply. This was because they were given the choice to assist the US against Meng or even have larger fines against them

      • She was *forced* to "not contradict" the US version of events, as a condition of getting the extradition request dropped. That's not an admission, that's blackmail.

        The US charges reek of abuse of power. She, an employee of a Chinese company, is accused of working with another Chinese company to sell stuff to Iran. The US had embargoed Iran. Which hardly applies to a Chinese citizen working for/with Chinese companies.

        If Canada had balls, they should have laughed the extradition request out of court.

        • She was *forced* to "not contradict" the US version of events, as a condition of getting the extradition request dropped. That's not an admission, that's blackmail.

          The US charges reek of abuse of power. She, an employee of a Chinese company, is accused of working with another Chinese company to sell stuff to Iran. The US had embargoed Iran. Which hardly applies to a Chinese citizen working for/with Chinese companies.

          Nope, its not that simple. If you do business with Iran you are prohibited from doing business with the US. If you lie about a business relationship with Iran to do business in the US then you are subject to US prosecution. Tell the truth, you are told you can't do business here, go home. Lie, you are committing fraud. She chose the fraud route.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by k0t0n ( 7251482 )
            The embargo prohibits US companies to work with bussinesses in Iran, but that's it. Huawei can do what they want where they want with their Chinese products, regardless of who Uncle Sam is buddies with atm

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by west ( 39918 )

              Again, the embargo prohibits you from doing business in Iran and the US. If you're a foreign company and you do business in both, then you risk prosecution.
              And of course, this applies to the entire corporate hierarchy. No creating a subsidiary that deals exclusively with one and another that deals exclusively with the other.

              Want to deal with Iran? The entire corporate hierarchy cannot touch America in any way.

              But of course, everyone wants to do business with America, which is why the embargo works.

              I'm no

              • Re: (Score:1)

                by k0t0n ( 7251482 )
                Actually the corporation I'm working in does business with both, we just had to cut them off US software

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by west ( 39918 )

                  Quite true and thanks for pointing this out. I over generalized.

                  There are a raft of restrictions, but it's not a matter of prohibiting doing any business at all.

                  I will say that the US is not always in a hurry to make crystal clear what is legal/illegal, which makes many businesses leery of doing any business at all with sanctioned countries.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by drnb ( 2434720 )

              The embargo prohibits US companies to work with bussinesses in Iran, but that's it. Huawei can do what they want where they want with their Chinese products, regardless of who Uncle Sam is buddies with atm

              You need to reread what I wrote. She was trying to do business in both the US and Iran and lied about it.

    • Re: American trap (Score:1, Interesting)

      by linuxxunil ( 8749207 )
      After reading your other comments I can tell youâ(TM)re likely a Chinese communist government employee who is paid to post comments with disinformation on western comment sections. Youâ(TM)re pretty transparent. You even deny the Tiananmen Square massacre took place. I guess itâ(TM)s hard to know the truth when your government works so hard to hide it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by theshowmecanuck ( 703852 )

      Fuck off you CCP shill. Talk to the Canadians the Chinese kidnapped and put in prison, and threaten with death. All because China is a shit dictatorship that practices hostage diplomacy.

      • Re:American trap (Score:4, Insightful)

        by theshowmecanuck ( 703852 ) on Friday September 24, 2021 @10:18PM (#61830325) Journal

        And for anyone who doesn't think this is true, China just released the two hostages. Canada arrested the Hwuawei criminal on request for extradition by a country we have a formal and important extradition treaty with. By rule of law we had to do this. China does not operate by rule of law, so they kidnapped and threatened with execution, held hostage with death threats, to try to force Canada to release that woman. They couldn't understand why it wasn't working. And make no mistake, China isn't just trying to intimidate Canada. They are at work in the South China Sea, and China is the reason Australia needs to buy nuclear submarines.

        • Ok I don't understand why Canada *had* to do this. Apart from the fact that the charges do sound rather reaching it was something that happened in HK between non US entities. Are you telling me that if I solicit sex say in the UK where it is legal, then fly to Canada, the US can decide they want to prosecute me for something that is illegal for the US and Canada would *have* to comply?

          • Educate yourself on the subject of extradition treaties, and the case in general. She made an agreement that involved terms for Hwuawei doing business in America. She violated them and in fact never intended to honour them. Her company did business with Iran, a terrorist state. I wish they would have just shot her. And personally other than the hostage diplomacy I didn't really give two shits about the two Michaels. If they had executed the one guy, it might have saved other idiots from going over there. Th

      • Fuck off you CCP shill. Talk to the Canadians the Chinese kidnapped and put in prison, and threaten with death. All because China is a shit dictatorship that practices hostage diplomacy.

        Why are you people so desperate to race to the bottom? I heard someone shot and killed someone else the other day. I guess that means I get to shoot and kill people now too and anytime someone criticises me I can just tell them to fuck off and stop shilling for the other guy right?

        Be better than those people you criticise. We expect nothing but the worst from China. We expect a shitton more from the USA. Or at least we used to. How far the mighty have fallen.

    • The extradition should have been denied because Canada is only supposed to extradite people for things that if they occurred in Canada would be illegal. The alleged actions were not illegal under Canadian law therefore extradition should have been automatically denied.

      • The alleged actions were not illegal under Canadian law therefore extradition should have been automatically denied.

        Wrong. On May 27 2020, the BC Supreme Court ruled "the allegations against Meng could constitute a crime in Canada".

        Meng extradition timeline [cp24.com]

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Uberbah ( 647458 )

          Wrong. On May 27 2020, the BC Supreme Court ruled "the allegations against Meng could constitute a crime in Canada".

          Too bad all alleged actions in questioned happened on the opposite side of the planet, no where near Canada. Derp derp american exceptionalism derp derp

          • I'm not commenting about the politics of Meng's arrest. If anything, the standard for extradition in Canada is a very low bar to hit so it is surprising it dragged out so long. The low standard and the crown's eagerness to push cases like Meng's are worries to say the least.

            It doesn't help when in the discussion claims are made that are demonstrably false and easy to check.

  • What about that Canadian in jail for 11 Years (Score:3, Interesting)

    by iamnotx0r ( 7683968 ) on Friday September 24, 2021 @07:04PM (#61829943)
    Is he being let go?

    For those that do not get the linkage. Two canadians were arrested days after Meng Wanzhou was detained by the Canadians.
    Also, no Canadian spies, for years since, of for years before.

    One is in jail, one is being sentenced now.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world... [bbc.com]
    • edit.

      Also, no Canadian spies, for years before, of for years *since*.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      False equivalence.

      It is disingenuous to try to equate the arrest of a woman who were accused of doing something that was NOT a crime BOTH in where it occurred (Hong Kong) and where she was arrested (Canada), with 2 man caught spying which is definitely a crime where it occurred and where they were arrested.

      Not only that, other companies that committed much worse similar crimes (violating US sanctions on Iran), such as HSBC, never had any officials arrested, and all got off by simply paying fines. Consideri

    • Also, no Canadian spies, for years since, of for years before.

      How do you know? Do you work for the CIA or the Canada spy agency?

      For those that do not get the linkage. Two canadians were arrested days after Meng Wanzhou was detained by the Canadians.

      But it is really moot to argue about that, given the US/Canada made their first move of kidnapping innocent Chinese citizen. It's called retaliation, or self-defense. (Note: I do not say these two are not spies. People bound by NDAs and secrecy laws would know better. Maybe we can ask Edward Snowden.)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by spth ( 5126797 )

      Just after Canada released Meng Wanzhou, China released those two (Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig).

      So this is essentially the old Cold-war style exchange of prisoners.

    • Is he being let go?

      Do you always judge the actions of the USA, a country which prides itself on freedom and democracy by comparing them to the actions of the CCP?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by fygment ( 444210 )

      The two Canadians were immediately released.

      And so _clearly_ they were being held for purely political reasons.

      Meng admitted that the facts of her case were correct. No such admission from the Canadians about their charges.

      What is interesting is that while the wealthy and politically powerful (also wealthy) were engaged in this activity, two non-wealthy people paid a very real price. While Meng continued her privileged lifestyle (mansion in Vancouver and ability to move around town), the two Michaels wer

  • The first submission on this topic [slashdot.org] was ignored while @BeauHD wrote a water-downed version.

    Title:

    Huawei CFO Resolve Fraud Charges with US, Without Admitting Guilty

    Content:

    Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou and the US Department of Justice on Friday entered an agreement to defer prosecution of US charges against her until late 2022, after which point the charges could be dropped. The deal will allow her to return to China, and could bring to an end a nearly three-year legal saga that has complicated relations between the United States, China and Canada. Meng appeared virtually in a court in Brooklyn, New York, and pleaded not guilty to charges of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, bank fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and wire fraud. However, as part of the deal, Meng "confirmed" that the statement of facts in the deferred prosecution agreement are true. Those facts include that she misrepresented Huawei's relationship with Skycom to HSBC, according to court documents. Previously, lawyers fighting the extradition of Huawei's chief financial officer to the United States presented internal emails from British bank HSBC that they said disproved U.S. claims that Huawei misled the bank. Her legal team has extracted internal documents from HSBC, showing at least two senior HSBC leaders were aware of connections between Huawei and its Iranian subsidiary Skycom through a court in Hong Kong. They have also claimed that the US case — which was filed amid former President Donald Trump's trade war with China — was politically motivated.

  • ... face the consequences of holding her here for as long as we did.

    Honestly, this whole thing just pisses me off.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      We should have told the Americans fuck off with their world police stuff.

      • A Canadian judge ruled that she seemed to have committed fraud according to Canadian law and could be prosecuted by Canada. That this was independent of violating US sanctions. That she could be lawfully detain in Canada due to fraud allegation.

        • A Canadian judge ruled that she seemed to have committed fraud according to Canadian law and could be prosecuted by Canada. That this was independent of violating US sanctions. That she could be lawfully detain in Canada due to fraud allegation.

          Nope. A Canadian judge made no such ruling. The judge hasn't even issued a judgment in this case.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by drnb ( 2434720 )

            A Canadian judge ruled that she seemed to have committed fraud according to Canadian law and could be prosecuted by Canada. That this was independent of violating US sanctions. That she could be lawfully detain in Canada due to fraud allegation.

            Nope. A Canadian judge made no such ruling. The judge hasn't even issued a judgment in this case.

            "a Canadian court ruled Wednesday, finding what the U.S. accuses the Chinese telecom executive of would also be a crime in Canada"
            https://www.courthousenews.com... [courthousenews.com]

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

          If you've got a link, I'd love to see it.

          Canadian law requires that anyone to be extradited needs to be guilty of a crime that is also a crime in Canada. Is that what you're referring to? If so, the law requires that the person be guilty of some crime, like fraud, that is also a crime in Canada, not that they are guilty of a crime in Canada. See the distinction?

          It's quite possible that what Meng might have done, had she done it in Canada, and had Canada had sanctions against Iran like the US does, would hav

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by drnb ( 2434720 )

            If you've got a link, I'd love to see it. Canadian law requires that anyone to be extradited needs to be guilty of a crime that is also a crime in Canada.

            Yes, and that is why she was detained,

            "a Canadian court ruled Wednesday, finding what the U.S. accuses the Chinese telecom executive of would also be a crime in Canada"
            https://www.courthousenews.com... [courthousenews.com]

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

              From your link:

              the conduct the United States accuses Meng of would constitutes fraud had it happened in Canada

              It did not happen in Canada, nor did it happen in the United States. It happened in Hong Kong.

              The double criminality standard is there to prevent, for example, Texas from demanding extradition of women who got abortions, or Thailand from extraditing people who said the king is a poo poo face. The judge was apparently too timid to interpret that rule in the general sense that committing fraud in a f

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by drnb ( 2434720 )

                From your link:

                the conduct the United States accuses Meng of would constitutes fraud had it happened in Canada

                It did not happen in Canada ...

                It did not need to. The act merely needed to be illegal in Canada for extradition to be legal.

                ... nor did it happen in the United States.

                It did not need to. She does business in the US so also doing business in Iran is illegal.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by ghoul ( 157158 )
                  Just because its US Law doesnt mean its legal. US Congress passes many many illegal laws which are contrary to signed and ratified treaties. No court should go blindly by what whim the US Congress felt during a particular political season.

                  The entire concept of US sanctions having extraterritorial consequences are bad in law. There is no legal leg to stand on. Its just might is right. HSBC for example should be able to say to the Treasury - Buzz off. This is a transaction in Hong Kong for a Chinese compa

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by drnb ( 2434720 )

                    Just because its US Law doesnt mean its legal.

                    Chinese have learnt to take hostages too.

                    Emperors have always taken hostages, for thousands of years, Xi is no different.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by mark-t ( 151149 )
            Her lawyers tried to get her released on the premise that she had not committed any crime in Canada, but the judge determined that the essence of the allegations against Wanzhou was fraud (wire and bank fraud if I recall correctly), and that *IS* a crime in Canada. Even if that precise charge was not in the actual accusation, it was still sufficient to make her detention lawful.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mark-t ( 151149 )

        The RCMP had a very narrow time window in which to act if they were to apprehend Wanzhou when they did, because she was between two flights, and they very easily could have missed her if things had simply not gone as well as they did.

        You cannot convince me that if the consequences of detaining her could have been foreseen, that the RCMP would not have missed that window through no apparent fault of their own.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

          Yes, they screwed up badly there. Presumably someone without the necessary experience got the call and sent the cops. Someone more senior likely would have instructed the officers to hit some traffic on their way. Hopefully we don't make such mistakes in the future.

  • And within hours ... (Score:5, Informative)

    by kbahey ( 102895 ) on Friday September 24, 2021 @10:42PM (#61830357) Homepage

    And within hours, the two Canadians that were tried and convicted of spying were released [bbc.com] ...

    Hostage diplomacy ...

    • Hostage diplomacy ...

      What is truly sad is that the USA and Canada engaged in it. I mean you expect that shit from China, but the world used to have a higher opinion of North America.

  • Two Canadians Released Already (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The two Canadians have been released.
    Yep - hostage diplomacy, plain & simple.

    Fuck China and their lies.
    • Should be a lesson for all westerners. China is a place you should not go. Travel to China at your own risk, you could be kidnapped off the street at any time for any reason.

      It is a shithole dictatorship with no rule of law. Nobody sane should go there.

Slashdot Top Deals

No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.

Close