Rod Kapunan
The case of Huawei’s chief financial officer and daughter of the company founder Ren Zhengfei typifies the bullying by the US against countries legally competing with it in the spirit of free enterprise. The success of Huawei Technologies is one example how the US is putting politics over business to pin down rivals by imposing on other companies to observe its unilateral trade sanction, in this particular instance against Iran.
Meng Wanchou was arrested on December 1, 2018 at the Vancouver International Airport at the request of US authorities accusing her of defrauding HSBC by lying about Huawei’s business dealings with Iran, thus putting the bank at risk for breaching US sanction on that country. Wanchou was on her way to Mexico.
The US has accused her of defrauding HSBC by lying Huawei’s business dealings. The arrest was in Canada was instigated by the US authorities. HSBC senior executives cooperated and possibly colluded with the US authorities that Huawei controlled two affiliates, Skycom and Canicula, through which it did business with Iran. Her lawyer explained that she cannot be extradited to the US insisting she did not violate the US-imposed trade sanction.
Assuming she was aware that Skycom and Canicula was an affiliate of Huawei, it was those senior executives of HSBC that violated the banking secrecy by presenting and revealing those documents to the US authorities without the knowledge of Wanchou. Second, the transaction which included meeting with HSBC officials was held in a posh restaurant in Hong Kong which undoubtedly part of China. Whether an agreement was signed and concluded by Wanchou in that meeting is irrelevant.
In effect, it was HSBC that violated the banking secrecy law by informing the US authorities. Third, the US cannot offer Wanchou a plea bargaining for her to admit of bank fraud in exchange for her release for that could make her extraditable to the US under the principle of “double criminality” where she can be charge both in the US and Canada but could be extradited to the US for bank fraud but not for violation of the trade sanction.
Note that the so-called US principle of “double criminality” is obviously selective. It can punish Wanchou for bank fraud but would rather leave it to other courts to punish her for trade sanction which is very much of doubted applicability in international law. Canada will be left alone to handle a case of questionable validity, while the US taking cudgels of handling a case that is internationally binding thus making Canada a laughing stock for the world to see.
Wanchou maintain she has not violated any US laws or much more violated any law in the US. The transaction happened in Hong Kong, and she maintains her Chinse citizenship where China’s jurisdiction over her as a person is unquestionable. The same can be said of HSBC. The HSBC should observe the laws of the country where it is situated including their observance to the universally recognized banking rules for jurisdictional purposes.
However, the documents sent by HSBC Hong Kong to Associate Chief Justice Heather Holmes of the Supreme Court of British Columbia showed that the US authorities colluded with HSBC in making selective, misleading and “outright false” claim against Wanchou to lie and fabricate to purposely distort and misled facts. HSBC officials acted in cahoots with the US to build their case against her. Most outrageous, the case her is grounded on an illegally obtained documents which is prohibited.
The rejection by the Canadian court of the bank document submitted by Hong Kong’s HSBC as evidence in support of Wanchou is unprecedented. It is like rejecting a bank account from the branch office of the same bank. In which case, that could put the depositor in quandary. Besides, there is also an HSBC office in Vancouver, Canada.
As one observed, there was deceit in the arrest of Wanchou. The US authorities cannot now secure her testimony for that would be tantamount of her testifying against her own interest. That could place doubt about the tenability of the charges lodged by the US authorities for it seems the US authorities bided their time to pounce of Wanchou using the jurisdiction of Canada to secure her arrest.
This explains why Wanchou is unwilling to enter into some kind of plea bargaining because she truly believes she has not violated any law. Such a demand could amount to blackmail much that she was arrested is in a tight situation where she has no option but to obey the demand for plea bargaining.
Most obtrusive is that the demand is equivalent to asking China to admit it violated the sanction, viz to make the US sanction legal. On the contrary, China is supporting Wanchou’s innocence, and for her to concede to the US demand would put China’s position of upholding international law to a naught.
Some say the offer to admit to a wrongdoing is tantamount to kidnapping for ransom. It is kidnapping because she was arrested against her will for alleged crime, she is not even aware of. This strategy was purposely done by the US to put pressure on China knowing it would squarely support Wanchou’s innocence.
Meng’s arrest has infuriated the Chinese government straining the relations between Washington and Ottawa. It put China without any recourse but to promptly arrest and detain two Canadians identified as Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor and put them on trial for alleged espionage. The arrest may have color of retaliation but the US ought to know that it was the Trump administration that initiated the mess.
The arrest of the two Canadians is indicative that China is supporting Wanchou; that allegedly Huawei’s affiliates, Skycom Tech Co. Ltd and Canicula, sold telecommunications equipment to Iran in violation of the US sanction. Even on this issue, there is confusion.
One must recall that the Obama administration lifted the trade sanction on Iran on January 16, 2016. The so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or the Iran Nuclear deal (JCPOA) namely China, France, Germany, Iran, Russia, United Kingdom, US and the European Union all agreed to sign the deal. On May 8, 2018 the Trump administration withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal but none of the members including China did not.
In the interlude of JCPOA’s effectivity, all the trade sanction against Iran was interpreted as equivalent to the lifting of the trade ban taking as basis the compliance of Iran to the nuclear arms deal of which China and the US are both members. The withdrawal of the US from JCPOA cannot be interpreted as a restoration of the trade sanction. Iran did not violate the agreement except that the US seem not to agree the agreed provision signed by it and the rest of the members.
China and the rest of the JCPOA members manifested that the withdrawal of the US should not be interpreted as a restoration of the trade sanction much that none of the members has withdrawn. Rather, the members of JCPOA manifested that they be allowed to resume normal trade with Iran, and Iran in turn should refrain from enriching its nuclear fuel.
China complied to the agreement which was seriously disrupted and put into disarray after President Trump unexpectedly withdrew. Maybe we could give Huawei the benefit that the trade sanction against Iran has been lifted by the signing of the JCPOA, and the US cannot reimpose its trade sanction by the simple expedience of withdrawing from the JCPOA more so that none of the members concurred with it.
The case of Huawei’s chief financial officer and daughter of the company founder Ren Zhengfei typifies the bullying by the US against countries legally competing with it in the spirit of free enterprise. The success of Huawei Technologies is one example how the US is putting politics over business to pin down rivals by imposing on other companies to observe its unilateral trade sanction, in this particular instance against Iran.
Meng Wanchou was arrested on December 1, 2018 at the Vancouver International Airport at the request of US authorities accusing her of defrauding HSBC by lying about Huawei’s business dealings with Iran, thus putting the bank at risk for breaching US sanction on that country. Wanchou was on her way to Mexico.
The US has accused her of defrauding HSBC by lying Huawei’s business dealings. The arrest was in Canada was instigated by the US authorities. HSBC senior executives cooperated and possibly colluded with the US authorities that Huawei controlled two affiliates, Skycom and Canicula, through which it did business with Iran. Her lawyer explained that she cannot be extradited to the US insisting she did not violate the US-imposed trade sanction.
Assuming she was aware that Skycom and Canicula was an affiliate of Huawei, it was those senior executives of HSBC that violated the banking secrecy by presenting and revealing those documents to the US authorities without the knowledge of Wanchou. Second, the transaction which included meeting with HSBC officials was held in a posh restaurant in Hong Kong which undoubtedly part of China. Whether an agreement was signed and concluded by Wanchou in that meeting is irrelevant.
In effect, it was HSBC that violated the banking secrecy law by informing the US authorities. Third, the US cannot offer Wanchou a plea bargaining for her to admit of bank fraud in exchange for her release for that could make her extraditable to the US under the principle of “double criminality” where she can be charge both in the US and Canada but could be extradited to the US for bank fraud but not for violation of the trade sanction.
Note that the so-called US principle of “double criminality” is obviously selective. It can punish Wanchou for bank fraud but would rather leave it to other courts to punish her for trade sanction which is very much of doubted applicability in international law. Canada will be left alone to handle a case of questionable validity, while the US taking cudgels of handling a case that is internationally binding thus making Canada a laughing stock for the world to see.
Wanchou maintain she has not violated any US laws or much more violated any law in the US. The transaction happened in Hong Kong, and she maintains her Chinse citizenship where China’s jurisdiction over her as a person is unquestionable. The same can be said of HSBC. The HSBC should observe the laws of the country where it is situated including their observance to the universally recognized banking rules for jurisdictional purposes.
However, the documents sent by HSBC Hong Kong to Associate Chief Justice Heather Holmes of the Supreme Court of British Columbia showed that the US authorities colluded with HSBC in making selective, misleading and “outright false” claim against Wanchou to lie and fabricate to purposely distort and misled facts. HSBC officials acted in cahoots with the US to build their case against her. Most outrageous, the case her is grounded on an illegally obtained documents which is prohibited.
The rejection by the Canadian court of the bank document submitted by Hong Kong’s HSBC as evidence in support of Wanchou is unprecedented. It is like rejecting a bank account from the branch office of the same bank. In which case, that could put the depositor in quandary. Besides, there is also an HSBC office in Vancouver, Canada.
As one observed, there was deceit in the arrest of Wanchou. The US authorities cannot now secure her testimony for that would be tantamount of her testifying against her own interest. That could place doubt about the tenability of the charges lodged by the US authorities for it seems the US authorities bided their time to pounce of Wanchou using the jurisdiction of Canada to secure her arrest.
This explains why Wanchou is unwilling to enter into some kind of plea bargaining because she truly believes she has not violated any law. Such a demand could amount to blackmail much that she was arrested is in a tight situation where she has no option but to obey the demand for plea bargaining.
Most obtrusive is that the demand is equivalent to asking China to admit it violated the sanction, viz to make the US sanction legal. On the contrary, China is supporting Wanchou’s innocence, and for her to concede to the US demand would put China’s position of upholding international law to a naught.
Some say the offer to admit to a wrongdoing is tantamount to kidnapping for ransom. It is kidnapping because she was arrested against her will for alleged crime, she is not even aware of. This strategy was purposely done by the US to put pressure on China knowing it would squarely support Wanchou’s innocence.
Meng’s arrest has infuriated the Chinese government straining the relations between Washington and Ottawa. It put China without any recourse but to promptly arrest and detain two Canadians identified as Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor and put them on trial for alleged espionage. The arrest may have color of retaliation but the US ought to know that it was the Trump administration that initiated the mess.
The arrest of the two Canadians is indicative that China is supporting Wanchou; that allegedly Huawei’s affiliates, Skycom Tech Co. Ltd and Canicula, sold telecommunications equipment to Iran in violation of the US sanction. Even on this issue, there is confusion.
One must recall that the Obama administration lifted the trade sanction on Iran on January 16, 2016. The so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or the Iran Nuclear deal (JCPOA) namely China, France, Germany, Iran, Russia, United Kingdom, US and the European Union all agreed to sign the deal. On May 8, 2018 the Trump administration withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal but none of the members including China did not.
In the interlude of JCPOA’s effectivity, all the trade sanction against Iran was interpreted as equivalent to the lifting of the trade ban taking as basis the compliance of Iran to the nuclear arms deal of which China and the US are both members. The withdrawal of the US from JCPOA cannot be interpreted as a restoration of the trade sanction. Iran did not violate the agreement except that the US seem not to agree the agreed provision signed by it and the rest of the members.
China and the rest of the JCPOA members manifested that the withdrawal of the US should not be interpreted as a restoration of the trade sanction much that none of the members has withdrawn. Rather, the members of JCPOA manifested that they be allowed to resume normal trade with Iran, and Iran in turn should refrain from enriching its nuclear fuel.
China complied to the agreement which was seriously disrupted and put into disarray after President Trump unexpectedly withdrew. Maybe we could give Huawei the benefit that the trade sanction against Iran has been lifted by the signing of the JCPOA, and the US cannot reimpose its trade sanction by the simple expedience of withdrawing from the JCPOA more so that none of the members concurred with it.