(Viewpoint) Xiao Yuankai: The Travesty of a Case

Rarely have there been cases in recent history of a multinational company executive from one country (country A) being held up in another country (country B) for charges of abetting that company’s trading in a third country (country C), which stands in violation of the unilateral sanctions of a fourth country (country D). 

The curious case of Meng Wanzhou, Chief Financial Officer of Chinese global conglomerate Huawei Technologies, ticks all of these boxes. To further complicate the matter, the charge in Meng’s extradition was reoriented to bank fraud, in the sense that she had allegedly hoaxed HSBC, a banking partner of Huawei’s, at a meeting in Hong Kong in 2013 into assisting the financial transactions of Skycom, a Huawei affiliate, in Iran.

So to clarify, the bank in question is British, the alleged crime took place in Hong Kong, the accused is a Chinese resident, the arrest happened in Canada, and that Chinese resident is to be extradited to the U.S. for her role in abetting her company’s trading with Iran, in violation of U.S. restrictions that are not applicable to Canada. 

The entire endeavor appears to be, for the lack of a better word, a travesty. The fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigation played a considerable role in Meng’s arrest in Vancouver during her transit stop there on December 1, 2018, and that Meng’s arrest was almost simultaneous with a dinner meeting between then U.S. President Donald Trump and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping in Argentina, where the two leaders talked about the trade war between the two superpowers, is unmistakably telling. 

Meng represents a China-based, privately-run company and the world’s largest manufacturer of telecommunications equipment as well as the second largest manufacturer of smartphones (at the time of her arrest), which holds more 5G patents than any other competitor in the market, at a time when then U.S. Attorney General William Barr openly said his country and its allies ought to “blunt and turnaround Huawei’s momentum” so that they could “retain and capture enough market share to sustain the kind of long-term and robust competitive position necessary to avoid surrendering dominance to the Chinese.”

And Meng just so happens to be the daughter of Huawei’s founder and CEO, who will turn 77 in two months. 

The matter is still ongoing, with the final phase of Meng’s judicial hearings set to conclude at some point next week in Vancouver. It is widely predicted, though, that the final decision will not be made until much later. 

A lawyer for Canada’s attorney general told the British Columbia Supreme Court that President Trump’s allegations after the arrest were made – he made explicit references to Meng as a “bargaining chip” and “ransom” – were taken out of context by Meng’s lawyers. 

“We agree with them that words have power, but your job is to look at the actual words and not an emotive recasting of the original language,” he said.

Coincidentally, just before this final phase began, a Canadian judge decided that batches of documents that Huawei believed would undermine the extradition case and show the lack of a “prima facie case of fraud on HSBC” were inadmissible.

These included more than 300 pages of the bank’s internal documents and emails, which, according to Meng, would “realistically capable of showing the manifest unreliability of aspects of the Requesting State’s case.”

It means, in plain language, that she and her lawyers are confident that the documents would be sufficient to prove HSBC senior executives were well aware of Huawei’s relationships with Skycom (and there was no misrepresentation of facts on the part of Meng), which underlies the extradition request from the U.S. 

The Department of Justice has long claimed that Meng intentionally kept Huawei’s relations with Skycom a secret, and only shared that knowledge with junior members of HSBC. 

On a practical level, the case’s evidence thus far appear to be circumstantial; evidence pointing to whether or not HSBC relied on Meng’s Powerpoint slides and explanation to assess relevant risks internally, and more importantly, whether or not the bank suffered any substantial loss, financially or otherwise, as a result are not immediately available or comprehensible. 

Despite all these remarkable developments, if the court rules that Meng should be extradited, this will be a recommendation given by the court to Canada‘s Department of Justice, and the Minister of Justice has the power to decide whether to enforce it. The Justice Minister, in other words, will determine whether Meng should be extradited to the U.S. at this final executive phase. 

In the event that her extradition is ordered by the Justice Minister, Meng will have the right to appeal either or both the decision of the extradition judge and the Minister. 

To a large extent, the geopolitical shadow on this travesty of a case has significantly overwhelmed meaningful legal arguments, so much so that it is being treated – and seen – as a de facto legacy ransom of the earlier administration in DC. Whether the current administration there would exhibit the political will and wisdom to untie the knots with which three major world powers are interlocked remains to be seen. 

About the author

Xiao Yuankai is a correspondent of the Vancouver-based newspaper Global Chinese Press.