Tariff like it's 1897, Trump's Great Economy, Maybe the Best Ever


#543

Well that was fun while it lasted. Anyone want to bet on her staying in Canada for longer than 48 hours?


#544

I still don’t understand exactly what law she supposedly broke.

I mean, it’s about Huawei selling stuff to Iran, right?
But Huawei is a Chinese company, and China (along with the rest of the world) doesn’t have sanctions against Iran, because of the Iran deal… only the US bailed on that deal.

I’m not seeing how the US can arrest people from other countries operating under those countries’ laws, outside the US. Unless she was doing stuff with Iran, while in the US, it seems really weird.


#545

US sanctions often purport to apply extraterritorially — see the Cuba embargo, or for that matter the recent Russian sanctions.


#546

I believe its a specific instance of fraud. I’m too lazy to do the actual research, but I think in some context the US requires companies to certify that they are in compliance with such-and-such sanctions act, and Huawei certified this under her signature, when in fact they had violated the act.


#547

Yes, I think she is charged for fraud related to how she represented her own company to other companies. These activities predate the Trump administration. More details here.

The United States accuses Meng, 46, of helping Huawei, one of the world’s biggest makers of smartphones and networking equipment, get around sanctions on Iran. She’s said to have told financial institutions that affiliate Skycom was a separate company in order to conduct business in the country, when in fact it was a subsidiary…

US officials went on to say that many of the deceptive statements followed a series of Reuters articles detailing Huawei’s control of Skycom. The news agency reported that Skycom tried to illegally import US-made computer equipment into Iran.

Meng is said to have made multiple false claims at a meeting with one of Huawei’s banks in 2013. Though it’s not named in court documents, Meng’s lawyer said Friday the bank was HSBC…

HSBC is said to have cleared more than $100 million in Skycom transactions that traveled through the United States between 2010 and 2014


#548

The dots are all joined up by use of dollars. If you want access to dollars, you play by US rules.


#549

Ah, ok, this makes total sense.


#550

This. She represnted Huawei’s sanctions enforcement to a global bank she was seeking financing from (as CFO); somehow she described it in a way that concerned the bank. The bank itself had an independent monitor(s) internally installed within its own rank and file to prevent it from violating sanctions, who reported her statement as suspicious, triggering an investigation.


#551

How is she going to leave Canada without her passports? Even if she had them, I can’t see her being allowed to leave.


#552

I suppose she could board a private jet and then try to talk her way through Chinese immigration.


#553

at that point there’s no issue. They’ll welcome her home with open arms.


#554

Ahh I never thought of that. I knew rich people don’t have to go through the regular security screening. So if someone with their own jet wants to leave a country, can they do so without having to show any sort of identification? I suppose sovereign nations are more concerned about who’s coming in than who’s leaving.


#555

Good question. I once rode in a private jet domestically in the USA (with EA). I dont recall even being asked for ID we just walked out on the tarmac at SFO in the private jet area on the other side of the airport. I assume there are stricter regulations if you fly internationally?


#556

You need an ID to enter another country, unless they make an exception for you.

You don’t need an ID to be a passenger on a plane, regardless of where the pilot is flying. However, if you are an airline passenger who is refused entry to a foreign country, the airline is legally obligated to fly you back. At their expense. And that’s why airlines ask for ID before you board their international flights.


#557

China grabs their bargaining chip.


#558

Yeah, this seems good.


#559

And now Trump again says the quiet part loud. He’s willing to overlook these “legal” issues if it means a trade deal with China. The rule of law is meaningless to him.


#560

Art of the Deal baby.


#561

#562

Is the “borrowing money from China” specifically to pay for this bullshit definitely proven? I’m sure that Trump supporters, seeing the insanity that this reflects, would be instantly converted into normal thinking people again. Like a cleansing wave of truth washing over the land, blah blah blah, nope, Trump is winning!