>conspiracy to commit interstate harassment and unlawful conspiracy to transfer a means of identification

>The meetings were conducted using a videoconferencing program provided by Company-1, and were organized and hosted by U.S-based individuals, including individuals residing in the Eastern District of New York.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/china-based-executive-us-tele...

Thanks. If the victims were in the US, that makes more sense. Though it still leaves a question mark over what happens when other countries do the same thing...

It was more than just that:

"Jin’s co-conspirators created fake email accounts and Company-1 accounts in the names of others, including PRC political dissidents, to fabricate evidence that the hosts of and participants in the meetings to commemorate the Tiananmen Square massacre were supporting terrorist organizations, inciting violence or distributing child pornography."

> Though it still leaves a question mark over what happens when other countries do the same thing...

This is whataboutism.

The version of the question I heard OP ask is:

"Is this might makes right, or is there an international legal standard and international judicial body to resolve this on a consistent basis?"

The way the OP asked it suggests OP thinks this may be "might makes right". But the question about international legal basis is a good one.

If this is being asked: “Do other countries have jurisdiction in China?” the answer is a flat no. You could go ahead and try. Nothing will happen.

The question "Do other countries have jurisdiction in X?" is "no" for all countries X.

I presume you meant that as an informal straw man to represent the question as less pertinent than it is?

Is it? That is not a very generous interpretation.

I am restating how I see the topic. If you think I have misinterpreted it then feel free to correct.

My opinion is that you've misinterpreted and misstated. The way you've framed it, the question does not use the word "jurisdiction" in a consistent manner with its definition or practice and does not address operative elements of the international legal system. The framing of the question also is also not on topic: the question about the legal basis of the challenge (all the way at the top of the thread) is a general one, and your framing here hyperfocuses on non-operative concepts ("juristiction") and a single country ("China"). Not only have you framed the wrong question in my opinion, but the question is rhetorical, and then you also bother to provide an answer.

In summary I'd say your comment is not relevant to discussion about legal basis of the challenge. It contributes to a different topic not being discussed: "What is your personal feeling about China?" to which you've contributed a thinly veiled "Boo China."

>you've contributed a thinly veiled "Boo China”

How can what I said be interpreted as a “Boo China”? You could try to apply local laws in any superpower and be ignored. Just because I didn’t needlessly maximize generalization at the cost of context doesn’t mean I’m singling out countries.

Perhaps another HN'er could explain it to you more clearly? Thanks for the insights and have a wonderful holiday season.

> its sort of ironic for them to be trying to apply US law in China to punish Chinese law being applied to people in the US.

If you think that's bad, you have to hear about this guy named Julian Assange..

> Also, while I support action on China, its sort of ironic for them to be trying to apply US law in China to punish Chinese law being applied to people in the US.

It wasn't them applying US law in China. It was US law in the US.

> its sort of ironic for them to be trying to apply US law in China to punish Chinese law being applied to people in the US.

There's no irony.

This is some general information for HN readers to have some background context to unpack comments like the parent.

1) The entire Chinese legal system is beholden to the CCP, so you cannot compare Chinese and US legal systems or courts.

2) It's important to understand about the non-kinetic warfare doctrines of the CCP.

One of them is "lawfare" (law warfare), which is using a target country's laws against themselves. This is very effective against an open society like the US.

An example is that the CCP has funded US shell organizations to block the banning of Chinese apps in the US, in US courts.

Also, WeChat is used as a means for the CCP in mainland China to exercise control over diaspora, so it really needs to be banned outside China. One of the abuses was using WeChat to have American Chinese hoard PPE supplies this spring and mail them to China.

So when an open society tries to defend itself, you end up with what appears to be an "ironic" situation, but was actually choreographed by the CCP.