This does not presuppose guilt in a way that would represent a direct conflict of interest in the US Justice system.
The Department of Justice is an executive agency whose directive is to bring indictments like this to trial - like a District Attorney.
The US court system, or the judicial branch, have no obligation to agree with the Department of Justice's position and are actually often don't side with them on matters like this where they test the precedent and definition of the law.
Ironically, the Chinese court system on the other hand has the rule of 3 Supremes - in that the views of the Communist party takes precedent over written law in judgements. In China, if a similar charge levied by the executive branch, this actually means guilt is presupposed in those passing judgement due to their lack of separation.
Surely evidence would reveal that, but this DOJ press release doesn't appear to be concerned with that.
>As revealed by the government’s independent investigation and review of court filings, //
Mwah-ha-ha-ha! They know how to tell 'em.
>the new charges in this case relate to the alleged decades-long efforts by Huawei, and several of its subsidiaries, both in the U.S. and in the People’s Republic of China, to misappropriate intellectual property //
Aren't new charges a new case? Aren't these extending speculations rather leading for a case that is in process, shouldn't they make the allegations and present any evidence - if they wish - rather than make extended claims bracketed by "allegedly". I can't believe that this has been written as anything other than a chance to make unsubstantiated claims ... have the courts hear the charges and then expound at length about the conviction.
I thought these sorts of things from one of the main parties involved (the USA government) were strongly decried by courts as they tend to colour juries and judicial bodies; aren't the DOJ perverting the course of justice here with such a diatribe?
>"Huawei’s efforts to steal trade secrets and other sophisticated U.S. technology were successful. Through the methods of deception described above, the defendants obtained nonpublic intellectual property relating to internet router source code, cellular antenna technology and robotics. As a consequence of its campaign to steal this technology and intellectual property, Huawei was able to drastically cut its research and development costs and associated delays, giving the company a significant and unfair competitive advantage."
That may all be true, but if you're currently prosecuting a case and have to determine if it's true it would be nice, as a DOJ, to not making statements that -- despite legal ass covering -- is clearly intended to presuppose the guilt of the defendant.
When USA decided to go after Huawei to bolster their own telecoms companies, I wondered if they realised they'd end up stooping so low?