Re <<A Canadian fraud law was broken, according to reports on this side of the pond.>>
such reports are incorrect, for if otherwise, then she would be arrested, charged in canada, and put on trial in canada, as opposed to awaiting extradition to usa
RE <<No doubt there were other forces behind the scenes.>>
if we are to believe that meng broke no canadian laws, and she most absurdly did not, and did not break laws in china, hong kong, and uk (location of co-hq of hsbc, the bank believed to be in question), and not in iran (destination of whatever trade allegedly done), then the entire episode is political because no laws are broken anywhere w/ any standing in any conceivable case, and ...
even if any laws are broken, they would be broken by the legal person that is the company as opposed to any director of the company, in which case indict the company and go after the legal person, the company.
meng is a cfo of huawei, and a director of the company (skycom)
tagging off of the article below cited, as to whether meng was misleading or not, is a matter of interpretation. issue in the main is whether she was being factual or not, and that is in the paper trail; either she quit the board, or not, and huawei sold the shares in Skycom, or not. I suspect the answers are yes, and yes.
as to whether usa has any standing in the case, the facts speak for themselves, that no entities and persons in the case has any relations to the usa, and there is no one besides the usa complaining of fraud - very difficult to have a crime of fraud when none are defrauded, on cursory inspection of the known facts.
as to whether the money coursing through the bank(s) are dirty or not, no particular reason to think skycom knew one way or another.
Re <<Iran is subject to U.S. sanctions and banks can be found criminally liable if they help move money out of a sanctioned country and into the broader global banking system.>> clip and pasted from below article
what does usa sanction have to do w/ anything none usa?
Let us suppose for a moment that the case is entirely political and now all involved wants the case to go away as quietly as possible, then the judge shall have to call it on facts presented.
In the mean time the canadians arrested in china definitely face issues entirely to do with break the law of the jurisdictions where they were arrested, and it is of course not at all arguable that the cases are political. Do you believe that? me neither, but demonstrable facts do not care whether we believe or not, they are just facts. truth? we leave to the awful lawyers.
we shall know more w/i 60 days as the usa has that long to make the case. so far as we know, the case stinks of officialdom bs, stretching the truth, twisting the facts, jumping the gun, and making a mess. given that you say you know the police, we can agree the police is not infallible, and sometimes criminal.
cbc.ca
So what is Meng Wanzhou accused of doing?
The fraud allegations against Meng centre around the relationship between Huawei and a company called Skycom, that did business in Iran. According to U.S. prosecutors, Skycom was a "hidden" subsidiary of Huawei.
Iran is subject to U.S. sanctions and banks can be found criminally liable if they help move money out of a sanctioned country and into the broader global banking system.
Reuters did a series of stories exposing the relationship between Huawei and Skycom.
U.S.prosecutors said Meng — who once served on Skycom's board of directors — denied those allegations during a PowerPoint presentation to bankers in New York in 2013.
They accuse her of making "misrepresentations" — including the assertion "Huawei has sold all its shares in Skycom, and I (Meng) also quit my position on the Skycom board
"That statement was highly misleading because Huawei sold its shares in Skycom to a company also controlled by Huawei," U.S.authorities said.
U.S. prosecutors claim Meng ultimately deceived financial institutions into dealing in dirty money. |
