Sorry, what? Reasonable people aren't okay with fraud.

If companies in unrelated countries don't want to play by sanctions, all they need to do is not do business in countries that require them to abide by sanctions.

I don't think anyone has an issue with that position.

In this case, if the allegations are accurate, Huawei committed fraud in order to gain access to both the sanctioning and sanctioned markets, and the arrest which put them front and center in the news is directly related to the violation discussed in this thread.

In large international procurement deals, it's often the case that bidding companies provide certificates indicating that they're acting like good corporate citizens. It's common to have a FCPA certificate (or national equivalent), and sometimes there's a seperate sanctions compliance certificate as well.

This isn't something that large corporations dealing with state-level procurement aren't aware of. They knew they were acting in violation of the sanctions and actively took steps to conceal it. This is brazen fraud.

> Huawei, U.S. authorities assert, retained control of Skycom, using it to sell telecom equipment to Iran and move money out via the international banking system. As a result of the deception, U.S. authorities say, banks unwittingly cleared hundreds of millions of dollars of transactions that potentially violated economic sanctions Washington had in place at the time against doing business with Iran.

> [...] In the United States, Meng would face charges in connection with an alleged conspiracy to defraud multiple financial institutions, with a maximum sentence of 30 years for each charge.

It seems like the sanctions are only part of the story. The charge is to do with defrauding the banks into violating the sanctions.

That’s really the same thing though. It is quite a stretch of the definition of fraud. Nobody was out any money. They just lied to the bank about how they were using the money. It seems like that is not the bank’s concern anyway, and the bank suffered no harm. If there is more to it than that, I’d be curious to know.

No, there's less to it than that:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1344

You aren't allowed to lie to the bank if you're getting money out of them, even if they are made whole. Them being made whole may prevent them from exercising a number of tortious claims against you, but that doesn't mean what you've done isn't independently illegal.

In what way is that not fraud?

Fraud - wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

No one has to be "out any money" for fraud to occur.

These were UN sanctions passed by the UN Security Council. China is a permanent member of the SC and has the ability to unilaterally veto any action. They voted in favor of the sanctions that Huawei violated. So Huawei violated Chinese law and US law (by involving US companies)... it's just that the Chinese don't care to enforce the sanctions they agreed to.

These were not UN sanctions. If you read the report it clearly says these were regulations placed by Washington.

UN had no banking restrictions on Iran if the activity was unrelated to nuclear proliferation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iran

Computer equipment can be used to run simulations for nuclear weapons (in fact, this is how nuclear weapons have been tested for decades.. and why we don't detonate them any more), and therefore is prohibited under the UN sanctions.

Additionally, the UN sanctions also prohibit banking services for prohibited items.

This is what Meng is accused of: attempting to transfer HP computers to Iran, and using the US financial system to do it. Both of these activities are prohibited by the UN sanctions.

Please reread the UN resolutions if you're unsure of this.

Edit: The bank fraud part is a US law, not under the UN sanctions.. But still that just means she committed bank fraud under US law in addition to breaking the sanctions.

Do you have any sources? The only relevant information I was able to find is Canada's list of nuclear-related dual-use items:

https://www.international.gc.ca/controls-controles/about-a_p...

Which was used for its enforcement of the UN sanctions.

The list only includes very specialized computer hardware that can operate at very low temperatures or high radiation environments.

None of the news reports I've seen state that Huawei is being accused of violating UN sanctions. The US justice department sought Meng's extradition on the grounds that she committed fraud by lying to banks.

The violation of the sanctions would have been part of the extradition request if they were UN sanctions, as that would meet the dual-criminality bar, so given they're not, it's very likely these were US-specific sanctions, and the extradition request was made on the grounds of the fraud charge because, unlike the sanctions violations, it could potentially meet the requirement of dual-criminality.

The sanctions should include pencils too, since they can be used to do math which can be used to figure out nuclear equations, thus violating the nuclear sanctions

and power cables because they can power those computers and are obviously dual purpose.

So a company's business practices should supersede a country's laws. Does this apply to only to sanctions? How about environmental laws?

This isn't a country's laws - Huawei is a Chinese company, it's not Chinese prosecutors going after Huawei.

Companies should not be subject to the laws of arbitrary countries. Would you say US copyright laws should be applied globally too?

Countries that enforce American sanctions do so because they're signatories to various treaties. Similarly, countries that enforce American copyright laws are also signatories. It's opt-in, often under real-or-perceived economic duress, but it's not like it's totally arbitrary.

Doesn't change the fact that it should be up to that country's prosecutors to do the enforcement - not the governments of Canada or the USA.

International treaties should not override a country's laws - Canada for example is already in brazen violation of internation drug treaties.

If US authorities want them on these charges, they should be presenting legitimate evidence to Chinese prosecutors and arguing over the treaty in question, not playing world police.

No. If every person was legally immune, save for their own country, then each country could simply refuse to persecute citizens that violate treaties. Under your proposed scheme, treaties wouldn't be worth the paper they're written on.

Of course, but then they'd have to contend with the country in question - basically, the US should be revoking whatever benefits China gains from such treaties, not prosecuting them directly.

Yes, copyright is a good analogy: I don't get to legally torrent non-American works just because they're foreign. And if I did breach the copyright laws of a country with which the US has no extradition treaty, I absolutely could be persecuted if I travel to that country.

That's not quite the same because we recognise the copyright in domestic law. American copyright laws aren't being directly applied in other countries - different countries can have different laws on dealing with copyrighted material.

Sure, but if you violate those laws and then travel to that country they're completely allowed to persecute you. That's what happened to the Huawei exec (or to be more specific, she traveled to a country with extradition treaties with the US).

Nope, you cant. This is like saying if I smoke weed in a country where it is legal and then go to a country B where it is illegal. Country B can arrest me because I broke their law.

Copyright law is a domestic law. You cannot be prosecuted for break US copyright law if you broke the law in an unrelated country B and you are not US citizen. Also B doesn't recognize US's jurisdiction to enforce copyright law in that country.

> This is like saying if I smoke weed in a country where it is legal and then go to a country B where it is illegal. Country B can arrest me because I broke their law.

This is the case for several countries, such as South Korea: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/23/bong-arm-of-th...

In Huawei's case even domestic law doesn't apply to them. Its like a canadian citizen being arrested in South Korea for smoking weed in Canada

Huawei broke international treaties. My understanding is that violation of such treaties is enforceable by any signatory. It's more like someone laundering money in one country and getting arrested in another country that is a signatory of an international anti-laundering law.

If this weren't the case, then international treaties would be pointless. Countries just wouldn't bother enforcing them against their own citizens.

I dislike American copyright law and despise how it’s so broadly enforced around the world. Having said that I’m unmoved by the “Chinese company” argument. Practically speaking most companies are effectively stateless multinationals, and even state entities like Huawei do business around the world.

It’s not shocking that a country with the muscle to flex would say “If you want to do business with us, follow these rules.” No one forces a company of country X to do business in country Y, and they knew the score when they decided to expand to a given market. Add to that the fabric of treaties and obligations tying countries together and all told it’s a reality of a modern world which sought to avoid a Third World War. Sure it’s annoying when the US acts like a BSD on behalf of its moneyed interests, but the underlying structure of international obligation is better than the alternatives.

Huawei didn't break any laws in China or Iran. They're not at war, China isn't sanctioning Iran. Huawei isn't even allowed to do business in the US at the moment, so they shouldn't be subjected to US laws, yet here we are, with the US attempting to force their sovereignty over others. Surprised that China hasn't retaliated yet, they could do some major damage to US interests if they wanted.

China agreed to sanction Iran when they voted in favor of multiple UN sanctions. As a permanent member of the UN security council, they could have vetoed it.