Hello everyone, welcome to the day reading jun. Ms. Meng Wanzhou finally returned, and we were all very happy to hear the news. Although Huawei's struggle with the United States will continue, for Ms. Meng Wanzhou, it is good to go home! This is her personal victory, a victory for Huawei's legal team, and a victory for China's diplomacy.
In today's video we will focus on three main things:
The causes of the Meng Wanzhou incident;
How the legal team turned the tide;
The final loss of the Meng Wanzhou incident;
The Meng Wanzhou incident can be traced back to 2008, when Huawei transferred the equity of its company skycom to Kanikola in order to do business with Iran. Although Kanikola is ostensibly unrelated to Huawei, the actual control is still Huawei. But after all, this was the first time, and at that time, as a Chinese company, it did not take the Prohibition of the Americans seriously, so it was not strict, and it was quite a bit of a cover-up. There are also many traces left in the follow-up operation, such as the salary of skycom employees is sent by Huawei, most of the executives are from Huawei, and the mailbox of the huawei suffix is used in internal emails. All this almost tells the Americans that we have a relationship with Huawei!
Americans want to lay out Huawei, have no intention of calculating, and have collected a lot of evidence from multiple channels, and HSBC is just one of them. As the saying goes, where there are sanctions, there are business opportunities. The US sanctions on Iran, from another point of view, is that Iran's needs are urgent, and there are few competitors. So almost all multinationals around the world want to do business with Iran, including the United States' own companies. To avoid legal risks, vests like skycom were tacitly used.
It's just that they are more experienced and better disguised, and the primary target of the United States is not them. So this is why HSBC later talked to Ms. Meng Wanzhou, and only then did Ms. Meng Wanzhou tell HSBC that the relationship between Huawei and Skycom is an ordinary business partner.
Later, after Ms. Meng Wanzhou was detained by Canada, it was almost equivalent to falling into the control of the Americans. This is when it becomes very passive. First of all, due to the confidentiality mechanism and personnel arrangements in daily work, ms. Meng Wanzhou is difficult to deny the relationship between skycom and Huawei; at the same time, the conversation between her and HSBC has also been handed over to the United States by HSBC at this time. Therefore, Huawei's legal team initially wanted to make a fuss about jurisdiction, leaving aside the US and Canadian governments, and simply defining this matter as a matter between HSBC and Huawei. The lawyer's point is clear: You see, the companies involved in this incident have nothing to do with Canada, and the United States accuses Ms. Meng Wanzhou of allegedly defrauding HSBC. It has neither violated Canadian laws nor adversely affected Canada. Therefore, Canada has no right to resist the arrest of Ms. Meng Wanzhou, and the Us government has no right to intervene in commercial issues between several companies, so there is no question of extradition, and accordingly, a request for termination of extradition has been made. If it is an ordinary case, this plan of the legal team will be confused, but in the case related to Huawei, there are Americans behind it. So Canada, he just wants to be strong, that is, to be this pawn for the Americans. So the program failed. On May 28, 2020, a Canadian court ruled that Meng Wanzhou's case met the criteria of "double criminality" and rejected Huawei's claim to suspend extradition.
How did the legal team turn things around?
Subsequently, Huawei's legal team proposed a second plan. Ms. Meng Wanzhou can no longer deny the connection between Skycom and Huawei, nor can she deny Meng Wanzhou's statement to HSBC, in the eyes of the outside world, the Americans are almost successful, ms. Meng Wanzhou has no way to escape. But it was at this time that the team of lawyers creatively found a new breakthrough in legal relationships.
Since the Americans accused Ms. Meng Wanzhou of defrauding HSBC, according to the definition of fraud in the legal provisions, the Americans need to prove not only that Ms. Meng Wanzhou made a false statement to HSBC, but also that HSBC believed Ms. Meng Wanzhou's false statement, and made a wrong judgment based on it, and caused losses. But the actual situation is that neither Huawei nor Meng Wanzhou has done anything to hide HSBC on the skycom issue, and HSBC is well aware of the relationship between skycom and Huawei from the beginning. HSBC specifically met with Ms. Meng Wanzhou and asked for an unrelated statement, not because HSBC believed Meng Wanzhou's statement, but because HSBC was reluctant to huawei's business and did not want to bear responsibility for this business. With this appointment, HSBC has an excuse to pretend not to know, and with an excuse to pretend not to know, it can throw the pot to Ms. Meng Wanzhou and continue to make money on its own.
In the direction of proving that Ms. Meng Wanzhou made an unrelated statement to HSBC, the Americans have done their homework and are almost invulnerable. But the Americans were negligent in the way HSBC believed the statement and caused the damage. Huawei's team of lawyers then gathered a lot of evidence in the blind spots of Americans, proving that HSBC believed that Skycom was Huawei's affiliate, both before and after the appointment with Meng Wanzhou. The appointment with Meng Wanzhou was only to get unrelated statements, to clear up his relationship, and to pretend that he did not know how to continue to make money.
According to the new evidence collected by the legal team, the logic of the case becomes: HSBC knows the relationship between Skycom and Huawei, but in order to continue to make money for itself, it takes a form, meets Meng Wanzhou to lure her to make an unrelated statement, as its own backhand in the future. Then everyone tacitly agreed and tacitly continued to make money together. At this point, the crime of fraud is no longer established. Americans never expected Huawei's legal team to have such a hand, so the only way to work was to prevent Huawei from submitting new evidence to the court. But after all, this was a trial cloaked in the cloak of democracy and the rule of law, so in the end the Americans found that they could not prevent the submission of new evidence, and once it continued to advance, it was difficult to say who would die, so there was a subsequent transaction: Ms. Meng Wanzhou and the US judicial authorities reached an agreement to sign a "statement of fact" on less than four pages in exchange for a "delayed prosecution" by the US judicial authorities. Sign it and go home.
The final loss of the Meng Wanzhou incident was won and lost
With Ms. Meng Wanzhou signing the statement of fact, the matter came to an end for the time being. It should be said that the Purpose of the Americans to control Huawei by kidnapping hostages has not been achieved. However, they achieved some results: first they set the most basic elements, Meng Wanzhou acknowledged the relationship between Skycom and Huawei, and also admitted that Meng Wanzhou's unrelated statements to HSBC were untrue. These four pages of factual statements may play many new tricks in the hands of the Americans in the future.
The strategy of Huawei's side is undoubtedly effective. It does not deny the connection between Huawei and Skycom, nor does it dwell on Meng Wanzhou's unrelated statement to HSBC, but confirms that HSBC has not been deceived by Huawei. Through the signature, some facts that had been recognized in the court were confirmed, and neither pleaded guilty nor exchanged ms. Meng Wanzhou's freedom.
So should Huawei, as a Chinese company, comply with U.S. sanctions against Iran? Does this long-arm jurisdiction take effect for Chinese companies? To be honest, even if Huawei violates the law, it is the Chinese government that has the right to punish Huawei. What the United States is doing is long-arm jurisdiction and hegemonism. In essence, this matter is like a wolf eating a lamb, the United States is bent on killing Huawei, other reasons for this reason. In the eyes of the Americans, Meng Wanzhou is just a grasp of the attack on Huawei. No matter what Huawei does, as long as he does not give up the attributes of his own technology enterprises, the United States will not let Huawei go. After 2 rounds, the United States and Huawei have won and lost each other, this time Ms. Meng Wanzhou returned home, the probability is not an end, but just an intermission. The United States has not yet been defeated, and Huawei is only escaping.
Finally, canada, who may be the only loser. To paraphrase a Chinese post-break phrase, the Pig Eight Precepts look in the mirror, inside and out are not people. Acting as pawns for the Americans, going out to be evil and making enemies with China, the Americans saw that they could not do anything, withdrew faster than anyone else, and left Canada alone in the middle of the road. After this incident, I don't know if other small followers in Canada and the United States will learn a lesson, and their Big Brother America is actually unreliable. Follow the Americans to run to the black, and if they are not balanced at the critical moment, they will be thrown as cannon fodder!
Ms. Meng Wanzhou signed the 4 pages, we don't have to worry too much. The content inside, Huawei can not deny, sign or not sign the difference is not much. And most importantly, with these 4 pages, Americans will not let go of Huawei, will not let go of China. Therefore, while breathing a sigh of relief, we should also continue to improve ourselves and develop our own hard power. It is not only the long-arm jurisdiction of the United States that needs to be blocked, but also the chip blockade. When China's semiconductor industry is truly at the top of the world, what the United States does to Huawei will become meaningless.
Three consecutive do not suffer losses, pay attention to the gains! I am Tianyujun, see you next time!