Was Meng Wangzhou just a hostage in Trump’s trade war against Huawei?
No. Meng Wangzhou herself admitted her guilt.
From Meng’s DPA and Statment of Facts:
“In entering into the deferred prosecution agreement, Meng has taken responsibility for her principal role in perpetrating a scheme to defraud a global financial institution,” stated Acting U.S. Attorney Boeckmann.
“Her admissions in the statement of facts confirm that, while acting as the Chief Financial Officer for Huawei, Meng made multiple material misrepresentations to a senior executive of a financial institution regarding Huawei’s business operations in Iran in an effort to preserve Huawei’s banking relationship with the financial institution. The truth about Huawei’s business in Iran, which Meng concealed, would have been important to the financial institution’s decision to continue its banking relationship with Huawei.
Meng’s admissions confirm the crux of the government’s allegations in the prosecution of this financial fraud — that Meng and her fellow Huawei employees engaged in a concerted effort to deceive global financial institutions, the U.S. government, and the public about Huawei’s activities in Iran.”
There it is. Meng was charged with misleading HSBC into dealing with Telecom even though Telecom had business operations with Iran, thus deceiving HSBC into unwillingly violating sanctions they had previously agreed to follow. It took her three years, but Meng finally admitted to her guilt.
Now, what she did not admit to was “bank fraud.” Evidently, her and her lawyers ascertain that deceiving HSBC into violating their previous agreements was not “bank fraud,” but perhaps something less severe.
Since she admitted to being somewhat guilty but simultaneously not being guilty “enough” to be charged with fraud, her prosecution was deferred. Her assets will remain repossessed and she can easily be arrested again at any time, but for the time being she was allowed to remove her ankle bracelet and approach the airport. Sure enough, she used that opportunity to leave Canada. If she ever enters Canada (or any country that shares an extradition treaty with Canada), then she is at risk of immediate arrest.
Curiously, some Chinese citizens have remained confused about the whole affair. Some of their common confusions include:
“Since when does Huawei have to follow US sanctions?”
Meng was not arrested for violating US sanctions. Meng was arrested for deceiving HSBC into violating the sanctions they had previously agreed to follow. Huawei itself did not violate any sanctions.
“If Canada takes Meng hostage, isn’t it fair that we arrest two of their spies?”
Meng was placed under arrest in accordance with the rule of law. For deceiving another bank into violating their previously-agreed upon sanctions, Meng was charged with bank fraud. She was tried, had access to lawyers, and was free to go about her daily life in Vancouver so long as she wore and ankle bracelet and did not approach the airport. This is why Canada is known for its incredibly transparent and strong rule of law.
By contrast, the two Canadians (Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor) were arrested without evidence, without trial, and held in a Chinese prison with the lights constantly on for three years. No access to the embassy or consulate, no access to lawyers, nothing. The two Michaels were clearly taken hostage by the corrupt Chinese state in an attempt to compromise Canada’s rule of law. Unsuccessfully.
“Think of the timing! Why would this happen in the middle of Trump’s trade war? It’s clearly just political manipulation disguised as justice.”
True, Huawei committing the offense may have gone unpunished if it weren’t for the trade war. Clearly, the timing of the arrest is politically motivated. However, a crime is a crime and criminals may be arrested by law enforcement at any moment of their choosing. Guilt is not absolved simply because the arrest may have had ulterior motives.
“Why was Canada behaving like a lapdog of the US?”
I find the selective bias and deliberate amnesia over the value of extradition among Chinese media to be especially curious.
When it comes to money launderers, murderers, and other criminals taking refuge in Hong Kong, then Chinese media seems to regard extradition bills as a good thing.
Both the Global Times, China Daily, and CGTN all went on lengthy spiels about how extradition treaties are a good thing. ¹ ² ³
So it appears as though China understands extradition. It appears as though China welcomes extradition. It appears as though China knows the benefit of extradition.
Oh wait,
When it comes to Canada extraditing a foreign criminal to the US, then Chinese media is quick to call names like “lap dog,” “white supremacist foreign enemy,” and “running dog of the US.”
The hypocrisy is palpable.
Conclusion
The one who takes hostages here is China, not Canada. A Chinese criminal committed an offense, was rightfully arrested, and subsequently put on trial. She was found guilty and she even plead guilty in her own defense trial.
China, by contrast, kidnapped two innocent Canadians and held them hostage for three years in a cowardly attempt to manipulate the justice system of a much fairer nation.
China has come out of this ordeal looking even more like a corrupt and backwards dictatorship. Meanwhile Canada’s reputation has soared as a heroic and incorruptible rule of law country, no matter how much pressure is applied upon it. It’s moments like these where Canadians everywhere can be proud of their country.
