Huawei Meng’s extradition case finally ushered in Sugon. The latest evidence suggests that this is a purely one-handed political case in the United States. Among them, HSBC participated in the formation, malicious lying, patchwork of materials, fabricating evidence, played a very disgraceful role.
Author. Yin Jingying.
Edit . . . Huang youth.
HSBC’s real “face”
On July 23, local time, Lawyers for Huawei CFO Meng late-night zhou filed a plea application with a Canadian court to suspend the U.S. extradition process, according to court documents released by the Canadian court.
Huawei’s legal team accused the Trump administration of undermining Canada’s judicial process by using the Meng’s late boat case as a “bargaining chip” in a U.S.-China trade war, according to the latest evidence filing, according to Reuters.
“The so-called Meng evening boat case is a political case concocted by the United States, ” the People’s Daily wrote in its latest report. HSBC was involved in the restructuring, maliciously doing things, piecing together materials, and fabricating evidence of guilt. “
After that, on the evening of the 24th Beijing time, the Shenzhen Banking Regulatory Commission agreed to the closure of the Longgang branch of HSBC Bank.
Approval of the shenzhen Longgang branch of HSBC Banking (China) Co., Ltd.
Meng was arrested by Canadian police at Vancouver International Airport on December 1, 2018, and the U.S. Department of Justice subsequently filed an extradition request. The US claimed that Skycom, Huawei’s unofficial subsidiary, did business with Iran, a fact that Meng had covered up and violated U.S. economic sanctions against Iran.
It is interesting to note that the “only key evidence” in the case was a PPT document that Mr Meng had handed over to HSBC.
This material, including the full ppT, as well as HSBC and Huawei business email records. Hong Kong Starcom 2009/2010 earnings reports from Huawei to HSBC are known: HSBC fully understands Hong Kong Starcom’s business in Iran, always knows the relationship between Huawei and Hong Kong Starcom, but falsely claims that Huawei’s relationship with Hong Kong Starcom is unclear.
In fact, Huawei sold its stake in Hong Kong Starcom in 2007, and in April 2009 Mr. Meng resigned from the company’s board of directors. Since then, the two sides have maintained normal business dealings.
Trump made a “threat.
On May 27 this year, the British Columbia High Court ruled for the first time that Meng had failed to release him, finding that Huawei’s vice chairman and CFO Meng had met the “Dual Criminal” standard seeking to continue her extradition case.
Meng then stayed in Canada for a follow-up hearing and waited for the outcome of the new trial, never leaving Vancouver.
The latest news is that Meng’s legal team has launched a counterattack to prove that Mr. Trump is suspected of being a threat in the Meng’s case.
Shortly after Meng’s arrest, Mr. Trump threatened reporters, “If I think it’s good for the biggest trade agreement in history and good for national security, then I will intervene if necessary.” “
Huawei’s lawyers said Mr. Trump’s comments of “intervention when necessary” constituted “offensive and coercive” in the case.
Meanwhile, Mr. Meng’s legal team has turned a light on Mr. Trump’s previous “bottom line”, claiming that the US president has repeatedly intervened in high-profile lawsuits with intimidation. For example, when Roger Stone, a close friend and confidant of Mr. Trump, was indicted on charges of defrauding Congress, Mr. Trump tweeted that the “unfair ness of the trial” was “unfair,” and the next day the Justice Department intervened in the case and found that the sentence was excessive.
Meng’s lawyer also pointed out in the document that the U.S. side misled Canada in the evidence of the case, leading to a disadvantage to Meng, criticizing the U.S. side for missing evidence, not doing its due role.
As of the time of writing, the White House and the State Department have not yet responded to the allegations.
Can Meng’s extradition be suspended if he wish?
After the latest evidence in the Meng’s late-night case was submitted, China International TV’s CGTN reporter Liu Xin connected with Song Liuping, Huawei’s chief legal officer and chief compliance officer. “They believe in Meng’s innocence and hope she will be freed as soon as possible, ” Song said in the interview. “
Liu Xin interview With Song Liuping / Picture Source: CGTN Interview Video Screenshot.
Liu Xin asked whether the meeting between HSBC executives and Meng in Hong Kong on August 22, 2013 was proposed by Huawei, and whether Huawei’s relationship with Xingtong was important in the trial of Meng’s late-night boat case.
On these two issues, Mr Song said that because the current case is in the process of being heard, so can not give further comment on the case, the media can look for clues from the Canadian court’s subsequent public documents.
In fact, these two issues are important to understanding the Meng’s case, and U.S. authorities have accused Huawei of doing business in Iran through Starcom, which it says is Huawei’s “informal subsidiary” rather than a business partner in Iran. As for Meng, the U.S. accused her of misleading HSBC about Huawei’s Iran business, which could result in a possible fine and punishment for violating U.S. sanctions against Iran.
Huawei and Meng deny all charges, including cheating on HSBC. The key piece of evidence in the case comes a PPT document that Meng handed over to HSBC describing Huawei’s customers, products and businesses in Iran. But evidence submitted by Meng late-night zhou shows that HSBC was aware of Huawei’s relationship with Singtong until the August 2013 meeting. So the US allegations that Mr Meng “misled” HSBC may not be true.
Although Mr. Song did not respond to any response to the case, he responded to past communications between Huawei and the U.S. Commerce Department in an CGTN interview.
Mr Song said Huawei’s team of more than 1,500 people was working on global compliance management. From 2009 to 2010, Huawei has been going to the U.S. Commerce Department every year since 2009-2010 to report and communicate, often around technical details, usually Huawei’s micro-measurement rules, the CISADA Act (the latest U.S. sanctions against Iran), and this communication continued until 2016, when the U.S. Department of Commerce began investigating Huawei.
Huawei did not receive any warnings from the United States about compliance issues uarlier than 2016, he said. Previously, Huawei had invited Us audits to audit trade compliance every two years or so.
According to Mr. Song’s response, Huawei maintained good communication with the United States on technology and compliance issues uarlier in 2016, seemingly suggesting that the United States was politicizing Huawei’s issues.
Huawei’s global presence as a core company involved in 5G construction has not been immune to geopolitical influences, leading the U.S. to insist on the extradition of Meng, and britain’s refusal to allow Huawei to participate in the local 5G construction under pressure from the White House. At the center of the political vortex, Huawei’s challenge is far from over.
The hearing on Meng’s extradition case will eventually be completed by the end of April 2021, although both sides can appeal the final decision.