Deep Sea Reporter Deep Sea Turtle
After more than 500 days of house arrest, Meng Wanzhou is about to usher in the crucial trial of fate.
On May 22, the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada, announced that it would make a key ruling on the extradition of Huawei's chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou on May 27 local time. This ruling will directly determine whether Meng Wanzhou can directly return to China by chance.
Although some US media judged meng Wanzhou to be afraid of "more fierceness and less luck" based on historical experience, Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau's remarks on the 21st that the outside world "did not understand the independence of Canada's judiciary" seemed to have added a lot of variables to this case.
Four days later, will what awaits Meng Wanzhou be freedom?
"Double criminality" is once again the focus of the verdict
Since the Meng Wanzhou extradition case entered the trial and defense stage on January 20 this year, the two sides have held a number of hearings, and the focus of the confrontation between the prosecution and defense is whether the "double crime" is established – which is the key ruling to be issued.
Although there is an extradition agreement between Canada and the United States, extradition is established on the premise that the relevant crime constitutes a crime in both the United States and Canada, which is called "double criminality".
Gary Botting, a Canadian criminal defense lawyer and authority on extradition law, said that if the judge decides that Meng Wanzhou's actions do not constitute a crime in the Canadian judicial system, then the whole case actually has no need to be tried again, and "she (referring to Meng Wanzhou) can fly home directly."
However, until the final results come out, this is still just a beautiful vision of the Chinese people.
Historical cases show that about 90 per cent of U.S. extradition requests received by Canada are granted, unless the judge considers the extradition request to be for political purposes or that the person concerned may face the death penalty if extradited.
Moreover, even if the result of the judge's ruling is favorable to Meng Wanzhou, the Canadian prosecutor who filed the allegations on behalf of the United States can still appeal.
2. The team of lawyers found a logical loophole
But in any case, the fight for "double crime" is not established, which is still the primary goal of Meng Wanzhou's defense team at the moment.
Canadian prosecutors believe that Meng Wanzhou was suspected of "double criminality" because she "misled HSBC" by "concealing or deceiving" and allowing HSBC to provide financial services for the business between Xingtong and Iran without knowing that Hong Kong's Skycom Technology Co., Ltd. (Skycom) is a subsidiary of Huawei, which violated the US sanctions against Iran.
However, the prosecution and defense have very different emphases and logic around conduct.
Canadian prosecutors, or the U.S. allegations, focused on Ms. Meng's alleged "fraud" of HSBC, which is a crime in both the United States and Canada. Once convicted, it naturally meets the criteria of "double criminality".
But Ms. Meng's team of defense lawyers found a logical flaw in the prosecution's allegations.
The so-called "fraud" is based on the premise of circumventing sanctions. In other words, if there is no US sanctions against Iran, the business transactions between Huawei and Iran can be carried out normally, HSBC has no risk to bear, and Meng Wanzhou naturally cannot commit or "cheat" the bank.
Therefore, since Canada did not impose sanctions on Iraq when it initiated the extradition procedure, the basis for the establishment of the so-called "fraud" no longer exists.
What's more, HSBC is likely to be very aware of the relationship between Huawei and Xingtong Technology Co., Ltd. According to Hong Kong's South China Morning Post, a document obtained by HSBC was aware of the links between Starcom and Huawei early on, as well as the nature of its business in Iran.
Canada's largest national newspaper, The Globe and Mail, confirms this fact. According to a confidential email the newspaper first obtained in 2010, at least in Shenzhen and Hong Kong, some HSBC employees, including even a senior vice president and assistant vice president in its Hong Kong office, were aware of huawei's close ties to Xingtong.
(Pictured: Canadian and Hong Kong media reports show that HSBC has long been aware of the inside story.) )
According to the "Globe and Mail" reported on the 21st, a Huawei source has confirmed the authenticity of the emails it obtained.
III. What is Trudeau's intention to "add drama"?
Interestingly, before the Meng Wanzhou extradition case will become the focus again, Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau came out on the 21st and made a strange speech.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on the 21st that China "does not seem to understand the independence of Canada's judiciary", suggesting that the Canadian government is powerless to intervene in the case.
(Pictured: Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau complains rarely)
Earlier, after Meng Wanzhou was unjustifiably detained through Canada, the Chinese government quickly protested. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying once said that the abuse of their bilateral extradition treaties by the United States and Canada is an arbitrary compulsory measure against Chinese citizens, which seriously infringes on the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese citizens, and is a serious political incident.
The Western media's interpretation of this remark focused on Canada's dissatisfaction with China's pressure, believing that China does not respect or trust Canada's judicial independence.
But in fact, regardless of the fact that the Canadian Department of Justice actually has the right to intervene in the case and terminate the extradition process at any time, even trudeau's emphasis on judicial independence is extremely weak under the strong intervention of the US government.
Over the past year or so, the United States has violated the norms of the market economy and used a huge and powerful state apparatus to suppress a private enterprise such as Huawei, which the whole world has seen. Just last week, the U.S. government introduced new and unprecedentedly stringent technology controls, intending to cut off any chips that contain American technology to Huawei.
Earlier this month, the U.S. government went so far as to disregard the legal principle of the "presumption of innocence" and asked a U.S. judge to restrict Ms. Meng's contact with Huawei to prevent Ms. Meng from obtaining evidence from Huawei and "filing a lawsuit against the U.S. criminal prosecution" in Canada. At present, Huawei is conducting judicial proceedings with the US government, and its legal team has collected many documents held by the US government and contain evidence in Meng Wanzhou's extradition case.
(Pictured: In March last year, Huawei took the U.S. government to court.) )
Under a ruling in a U.S. court that has already taken effect, the U.S. government could prohibit Huawei from bringing out the U.S. any evidence designated as "sensitive material" by U.S. prosecutors, and also prohibit anyone outside the U.S. from reviewing the material.
Canadian lawyer Richard Kulander said the U.S. approach was confusing because a person should be presumed innocent before being proven guilty, and Meng had the right to obtain the materials. He believes that the US side is just "buying time" because the US side is worried that the disclosed documents may reveal that HSBC actually knows the inside story when handling iran-related transactions.
Don't forget, US President Trump, who has always been big-mouthed, inadvertently told the truth: if necessary, he would intervene in the Extradition case of Meng Wanzhou, and even did not rule out her release.
IV. The verdict is still not the final outcome
At present, while exerting high pressure, the US government seems to be "determined to achieve" the extradition of Meng Wanzhou. Meng Wanzhou's side, according to his defense lawyer Martin, is suffering from health problems such as high blood pressure and sleep apnea.
To be sure, no matter how the Canadian courts rule next week, the case will be difficult to conclude.
If the "double criminal" is not established, Meng Wanzhou may indeed be released and flown back to China. But this has a premise, that is, the Canadian prosecutor will no longer appeal, and the court will release Meng Wanzhou.
If the other party appeals, there are two situations: First, considering the 30-day litigation period, Canada can sell a smart one and appeal after Meng Wanzhou leaves the country. In this way, Meng Wanzhou can respond to the lawsuit through a lawyer and no longer need to be detained; second, if the Canadian Ministry of Justice quickly files an appeal, then Meng Wanzhou may be forced to remain in Canada.
If the "double criminal" is unfortunately established, then the Chinese people do not have to be too nervous, because the hearing will never end there, but will open the second stage of the trial.
On the one hand, throughout the extradition hearing, Meng Wanzhou can appeal at any time. This is also the reason why the United States restricted Meng Wanzhou's contact with Huawei and formulated "overlord clauses" for relevant materials.
On the other hand, Ms. Meng's team of lawyers will still defend her on other grounds, such as whether Canada has abused the proceedings and whether Canadian officials violated the law while detaining Ms. Meng.
According to the Canadian arrangement, if the case enters the second phase, it is scheduled to begin in June, and closing statements are expected to take place in the last week of September and the first week of October.
Even if the final result is completely unfavorable, the case could continue for years because the Canadian judicial system allows for appeals against various court decisions.
A hammer, I am afraid it is difficult to determine the tone; the endgame, or "live for a long time".
This article is supported by the Tree Project, produced by [Deep Sea Area], and released exclusively in today's headlines, and may not be transferred without authorization