Today (28) around 2:30 a.m., Huawei executive Meng Nightboat “double crime” case ruling was finally announced, but this result is not what many people want to see … According to several Canadian media reports and court information released by the Canadian courts, The “extradition case” of Huawei executive Meng Evening boat, which has attracted the attention of China, the United States and Canada, finally reached a stage of important judgment around 2:30 a.m. Beijing time on the 28th.
Global Times Geng Zhigo
The verdict is against Meng’s late boat.
But the ruling did not support Meng’s argument.
(Pictured is the news that the verdict was bad for Meng’ late boat, published by a reporter for CTV News In Canada.
(Pictured is the court’s official judgment)
Earlier, Meng’s side of the defense is based on the U.S. request to extradite Meng’s case from Canada, the U.S. sanctions against Iran bill, but this bill does not exist in Canada.
As a result, Meng’s lawyers said that according to the “double crime” principle in the extradition agreement between the United States and Canada (i.e. the U.S. extradition of Meng’s extradition must exist in Canadian law), Meng should not be extradited by Canada to the United States.
But the Canadian Ministry of Justice, which requested Meng’s extradition on behalf of the U.S. side, said the U.S. extradition of Meng was directly related to fraud, that is, Meng made so-called “false statements” about Iran when he briefed HSBC about Huawei’s business, a crime that exists in Canadian law. So lawyers for the Canadian Ministry of Justice argued that the extradition of Meng was legally unquestioned.
Sherlock Holmes, the co-judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada, who is now in judgment, agreed with the latter’s argument that the “core” of the U.S. prosecution of Meng was fraud, and that Canadian law also includes fraud, thus complying with the principle of “double crime.”
(Pictured is what the court’s official judgment gives)
The decision was widely expected by the media to appeal.
Meng night boat has not lost
However, although the Canadian court on the “double crime” point made a judgment against Meng late boat, but this does not mean that Meng night boat lost the “extradition” lawsuit.
Because, in addition to appealing the ruling, Meng’s legal team has already prepared a number of responses to the case.
In addition to the “double crime” point, Meng’s legal team also argued that the Canadian authorities cooperated with the U.S. government in her seizure and arrest at the airport, violating the rights granted to her by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, especially the Canadian side at the airport before the arrest of Meng Night boat, the first time she was illegally detained and searched, and forced her to hand over passwords and other private information, which is to help the U.S. side search for more evidence that Meng’s late boat can be framed.
(Pictured is a statement released last May by Meng’s legal team, which lists a number of reasons they believe the extradition is illegal
Meng’s legal team also proposed that the U.S. extradition of Meng was for obvious political purposes, and that the U.S. government was abusing its power to interfere with the judiciary and falsely accuse Meng of being persecuted if he was extradited to the United States. This is not permitted by extradition treaties between the United States and Canada.
Therefore, the Canadian media reporting on the case also said that today’s adverse judgment does not mean that Meng night boat completely lost the “extradition” case, the latter two sides have to fight. But the legal process that followed could last for years, and why is this another kind of “torture” for Meng’ late boat?
(Screenshot from Canada’s CTV News Network)
Who made Meng’s late boat in jail?
Finally, when it comes to who left Meng in jail, you may think of U.S. President Donald Trump for the first time. But in fact, the Us government’s crackdown on Huawei has already begun, but “appropriate evidence” has not been found before.
A 2018 report in the New York Times pointed out that the U.S. had been investigating Huawei as early as 2010 under president Barack Obama, but that the U.S. government had been unable to produce evidence. Of course, the New York Times’s “shame-covered” version of this is that “if criminal charges of spying or other security against China are made, some classified information from the United States will be exposed”.
But things have changed by 2016. HSBC, which was investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice for other violations of its own law in late 2016 and 2017, agreed to “investigate” Huawei for the U.S. government in order to avoid being punished by the U.S. government, Reuters reported last year. The New York Times also confirmed this in its report, saying that doing Huawei through commercial crime is more in line with the U.S. government’s taste.
Then, according to Reuters, HSBC helped the U.S. Department of Justice get a copy of a PPT document that Meng had given to an EXECUTIVE named Alan Thomas as early as 2013 to clarify Huawei’s relationship with an Iranian company. The U.S. Department of Justice began to fabricate “crimes” against Hua and Meng over the tiny PPT document, which ultimately led to Meng’s arrest in Canada.
But it’s not just the U.S. that doesn’t want Meng to be released. From the previous Canadian media reports, in the country’s pro-American anti-China forces under the hype, Canadian public opinion on Meng’s view of the boat is relatively negative. And before today’s verdict came out, a group of Canadian media are constantly hyped the so-called Meng Evening Boat “will be released” rhetoric, but also more like a reverse campaign. But the Chinese side really understand the relevant parties in this case, all know that the case will not end so easily.