Hacker News Reader

Comment by rossdavidh | Hacker News Reader

Not particularly well informed on this, just want to point out to those trying to decide between scenario 1 (Ghosn broke the law with impunity because he was a CEO and felt entitled) and scenario 2 (Ghosn is really being persecuted for being a non-Japanese CEO of a Japanese company), that it is logically possible for both to be true. In other words, like Martha Stewart, he might not have been doing anything that his peers weren't also doing, but also doing things that were illegal.

Of course, the fact that scenarios 1 and 2 are not incompatible, is not proof that they both happened, just pointing out that it is logically possible for both to be true.

View on HN

Escaping state surveillance from Japan and then landing up in Lebanon via Turkey while the Japanese government has all three of one’s passports pretty much requires breaking lots of laws in at least three countries. (Likely more, e.g. money laundering.)

One could argue this was a rightful fleeing of persecution. But it complicates the picture on many levels.

EDIT: looks like he kept a second French passport [1]. He would have only had to break many laws in two countries, mostly around aviation and declaration.

[1] https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/01/02/national/carlos...

> Escaping state surveillance from Japan and then landing up in Lebanon via Turkey while the Japanese government has all three of one’s passports pretty much requires breaking lots of laws in at least three countries. (Likely more, e.g. money laundering.)

I don't see at all how that follows.

It's clear he broke the Japanese exit law (you have to show your passport to leave Japan by air, unlike, say, USA, France, Australia etc). Also he violated the terms of his house arrest. Likely some others.

But while I'm hardly an expert in Turkish or Lebanese law, in most if not all countries immigration authorities have wide discretion to admit or deny people on whatever basis they wish. And while it's easy to imagine someone in Turkey taking a bribe, that could very well be an unfair belief: it's just as easy to imagine the current Turkish government being happy to poke a finger in Japan's eye in some minor and deniable fashion. As for Lebanon, someone who is a national celebrity could easily make prior arrangement to be admitted with no bribe needed.

> you have to show your passport to leave Japan by air, unlike, say, USA, France, Australia etc

Nitpicking, but you do need to show your passport when exiting the Schengen Area (to which France is a part of)

I don't know if it's required by law or just what airlines choose to do, but I'm always asked to show my passport when I'm getting on an international flight to leave the USA (and I'm a U.S. citizen).

For all I know, they just do this to avoid the problem of their passenger not being admitted at the other end. But as a practical matter, I do have to show a passport (for a public flight, anyway).

It is required when leaving the Schengen area. They like to know when people are leaving so that they know who is overstaying and who isn't.

The airlines want to see the passport too, but every time I've left the Schengen area (Germany, Netherlands, and Iceland), the national authority for that country checks my passport and stamps it with an exit stamp showing the date, time, and airport of departure.

That doesn't happen when leaving the United States: just the airlines want to see the passport to make sure you won't be immediately rejected at the destination.

I’m out of the US right now and I had to present my passport (or passport number) three times before I could board: once while checking in online^, a scan when dropping my bag, and then a third time in person when boarding the aircraft.

^ (and I’m pretty sure entering my number at checkin is the critical one that’s matched against any important lists, right?)

I recently visited your country and was asked to show my passport- while I was going between Schengen countries!

So I don't think it is still part of Schengen area (or maybe in theory, but not in practice)

Won't be coming back, as Germany makes more sense for better connections to the rest of the EU, and no weird passport control on exit so I can safely keep my passport in the hotel safe while I visit Schengen countries.

Having lived in the EU for a while now, random passport check roadblocks can appear at any border and can occur within a country’s border (including on a local bus, train, etc) - it happens in most Schengen countries and Germany’s random checks are some of the most frequent and annoying.

Never had problems in Germany, ever. And it was not a random check: I was in a line of people waiting, with 2 booths and signs saying passport control. That was after checking my luggage and having already gone through security.

Having my passport checked by border agents to exit a country rubs me the wrong way.

The equivalent here in the US would be if everyone was asked to show a passport by border agents after having gone through the TSA, when flying from say NYC to Miami - not acceptable.

I'd sure like to know if other people also experienced that in the Schengen area.

Pretty normal to have passport check on exiting a country. You might have overstayed your visa and you are going to be fined or banned, or you might be a criminal and they will arrest you. Problem is that nationals are usually not extradited for crimes done in other countries, even if it happens in shengen area. So each country better check who is leaving to get criminals / fines not paid / avoid child leaving with one divorced parent.

I guarantee you that if you fly from NYC to Miami, you will not be asked for your passport after TSA checks. You can freely travel between the states.

I think that you may be European. Here we have freedom of movement, and used to laugh at the USSR where people needed papers for internal travel. Sad to see it returning, and the Shengen idea now being dead for practical purposes.

Lol.

https://thepointsguy.com/2017/02/us-cbp-domestic-flight/

"Temporary Reintroduction of Border Control"

https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/border...

Thanks, this confirms what I experienced. And the bad news is Germany is also affected now :-/ I remember reading in school that freedom of movement of goods and people was one of your founding principle, so I was very surprised.

Temporary? lol! that's what was said here for the patriot act too.

Looks like the EU is scraping Schengen. I think this cast a cloud of uncertainty on EU future.

List from the page you linked of countries with "temporary" controls that don't seem temporary at all to me:

Norway (12 November 2019 - 12 May 2020) Terrorist threats, secondary movements; ports with ferry connections with Denmark, Germany and Sweden;

Sweden (12 November 2019 - 12 May 2020) Terrorist threats, shortcomings at the external borders; to be determined but may concern all internal borders;

Denmark (12 November 2019 - 12 May 2020) Terrorist threats, organized criminality from Sweden; land border with Germany and with Sweden, ferry connections to Germany and to Sweden;

Germany (12 November 2019 - 12 May 2020) Secondary movements, situation at the external borders; land border with Austria;

Austria (12 November 2019 - 12 May 2020) Secondary movements, risk related to terrorists and organized crime, situation at the external borders; land borders with Hungary and with Slovenia;

France (31 October 2019 - 30 April 2020) Persistent terrorist threat, upcoming high profile political event in Paris, secondary movements; all internal borders.

> I remember reading in school that freedom of movement of goods and people was one of your founding principle

Freedom of movement != not showing documentation. (And it doesn't need to be a passport)

The simplest example is getting into any country you're a citizen of from abroad.

Some Schengen airports have security->passport (example AMS), some others have passport->security (example CDG T2), it's a non-issue.

Pretty much every country checks passports when you're leaving. The US doesn't as I pointed out in another comment, so they can charge you for a transit visa. (Some other countries allow sterile transit and don't check passports on exit - UK comes to mind - but you need a passport to travel to pretty much anywhere else from there)

> "temporary" controls that don't seem temporary at all

They have an end date. That's pretty much the definition of temporary. And yes there were previous temporary checks that have come and gone.

(If temporary checks weren't possible I guarantee how we would be reading about how the EU was undemocratic for not allowing member states to control their borders yada yada yada, the usual cynicism and uninformed rants that are so common here)

To be fair, some of these borders are de facto permanently closed and the listed end dates listed are bullshit. Some have been maintained for nearly 5 years, with a new “temporary” 6-month closure being announced immediately after the last one ends. These countries are pretty blatantly violating Schengen but no one is going to enforce anything because that would probably force the dissolution of or withdrawal from the treaty.

This is what I supposed with the dates suspiciously in perfect synchronization, from the 12 to the 12 a semester later.

Probably the Sweden/Denmark one. I haven't seen stricter controls outside of that date range elsewhere.

The Denmark/Germany land border check has been there for around 5 years and is still operating.

Are you American by any chance? "freedom" isn't doing anything you want whenever you want. You're absolutely free to travel within EU if you can prove your identity and prove that you are legally staying here. Just like you're free to buy a car as long as you can pay for it.

An illegal immigrant or a terrorist traveling with an ak47 aren't included in the freedom of movement and goods, of course we have random border checks...

> The equivalent here in the US would be if everyone was asked to show a passport by border agents after having gone through the TSA, when flying from say NYC to Miami - not acceptable.

That has happened in the US before: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/no-more-id...

Real ID is also basically that, since you have to be legal to get an id in the US and the TSA check is linked to fed databases.

I would suggest you keep identification papers on your person when you wander about in a foreign country.

> so I can safely keep my passport in the hotel safe while I visit Schengen countries

Random border checks have always been a thing in Europe, a passport is literally made for crossing borders, why would you keep it in an hotel if you know you'll be doing the only thing it is used for.

He could have left Japan on a boat, but if not that then it was probably a private plane.

The fact that he absconded by private plane, was never in dispute.

Excerpt from the article: The private jet on which he escaped reportedly landed in Istanbul first, prompting an investigation by Turkey.

I somehow read that as not necessarily implying he started the first flight in Japan, but maybe that was it.

In many countries, entering illegally is not a crime, but a civil offense.

It could also be that the Japanese were in on this: that they let him flee because they thought that the prosecution would have been seen as dubious, saving face in the process.

And even where it’s criminal, the charges may not stick if you can show that you had no other choice.

See: refugee migration.

That's a weird way to phrase it. It's like saying "theft is crime, but the charges may not stick if you show that you paid for the goods."

"Not sticking" usually refers to a loophole or procedural error, not everyone doing the right thing.

Indeed. Turkey has already arrested seven people who allegedly aided in the escape[1]. I expect Japan is also looking for accomplices.

[1]: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/turkey-arrests-pilots-ove...

We don't know the full extent of Ghosn's passport collection. I briefly had two working U.S. passports a while ago because of a processing glitch. It wouldn't surprise me if a real Player like Ghosn had double French passports and more, as a matter of course.

In the UK you can legally hold two working passports. People do this when they need to travel to countries which mutually prevent you entering if you have a stamp from the other (Israel and some middle eastern countries being the common example).

Same in germany, also if you travel often one passport might be stuck in the visa application process for another trip.

Same in Norway according to my ex boss. He used to have two for exactly such a reason.

The US as well, if I remember correctly. Can't find it on the State Dept. website at the moment.

Yes - you have to have a valid reason for it and they will issue you a second passport of short (usually 2 year validity).

Usually this valid reason boils down to having to submit your passport frequently for visas (eg. Brazil) such that it would impact your ability to travel internationally for other business.

It is perfectly legal in France to have several passports at the same time. It is encouraged in fact for frequent travelers.

You can legally hold two valid US passports now, without processing glitches. The second one only gets four years validity, though.

As reported in the news, he had two French passports and was allowed to carry one of them in Japan in a locked case. Presumably he broke the lock and used it to enter Turkey and Lebanon.

I didn't know that a person can simultaneously have two valid passports of the same country. I thought you either have to declare the old one as lost or bring it to the passport office to have it invalidated, when you apply for a new one.

How does this work?

People traveling through the middle east and Israel often have two passports. One they show the israeli immigration officers, and the other they show elsewhere. Israel will interrogate when you show up on their borders with an stamp in your passport from on of the arabic states. It's just a way to get around this kind of hassle.

Israel doesn't stamp anymore (at least the last few times I was there). You now get a small slip of paper instead. I presume for this very reason.

Even if you’re entering for business?

I've only ever gone for business.

And (some) Arab countries will create trouble/ban you from entering if your passport has Israeli stamps...

He's actually in trouble in Lebanon now because of this. The article says he entered Israel in 2008, which is illegal in Lebanon since they are technically at war.

I have no doubt Lebanon will look the other way (the entry registry might even be in a different passport)

He's a national hero in Lebanon. He's been considered for the presidency.

I think the leb authorities will go through the motions. But I agree with you.

The bigger thieves are the Lebanese politicians who are the ire of the current protests in Lebanon. They have fleeced the country to the tune of billions... Multiples of what Carlos has been accused of.

It was a very public trip with press conference with the Israeli President (TV, photographs, etc)... Clearly the Lebanese government and judiciary have known about that trip all along and haven't cared.

It's the other way around. Israel stopped stamping a long time ago - but still might if you're a dick.

But if you had an Israeli stamp in your passport - or left the slip of paper in, there's a whole host of other countries that will not let you in: Syria Lebanon Libya Kuwait Iran Iraq Pakistan Sudan Yemen

Israel may ask some extra questions - but they won't refuse you entry.

In the U.K. you can get this easily if your primary passport must go to an embassy during a period in which you must travel for work, though it requires assistance from your employer in writing a letter confirming this. One would imagine France might have similar rules, though I don’t know if they do or not.

At one point in Canada, it was possible to have three valid Passports. A regular one, one for travel to Israel, and one for travel to South Africa.

Israel would give you a very hard time if you had visas/stamps from neighbouring Arab states (and vice versa).

Under Apartheid, South African visas/stamps made it very difficult to enter other sub-saharan African countries.

Just goes to show that these policies restricting people’s travels only applies to “little people”.

Or catches up people that can’t get a lawyer/consultant’s advice before booking every trip.

If you have the means to travel to Israel and neighboring Arab states, or to South Africa and neighboring Sub-Saharan states from Canada, you have the ability to get these passports and you really should know that you should.

Every travelagent can tell you this, and a passport is like 50 bucks.

> Or catches up people that can’t get a lawyer/consultant’s advice before booking every trip.

It’s 2020 now, presumably you mean “people with no access to the internet”?

Typically for business travel. If you have to send your passport off to get a visa from an embassy, you might still have to travel to another country while waiting to get it back, for example.

https://www.businesstraveller.com/features/apply-second-uk-p...

Many countries make exceptions for middle east travel because many countries complicate things if you have a stamp from Israel. So for someone with ties in Lebanon but also doing big international business, a third country could easily rationalize issuing an additional passport so that neither Lebanon or Israel see each other's stamps.

Saw this mentioned in a recent article about an Instragrammer who claims to be the youngest woman to visit every country.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-13/ingenious...

> You can—and should—hold two passports from the same country, simultaneously.

...

> You just need to show written evidence of your conflicting flights, with your name on the reservation. And remember: You can book refundable tickets as proof of travel, show them at the passport office, and then cancel them later. Then you’ll have one handy for any future travel traffic jams.

I believe it's not too hard to do in some countries. It's usually to partition your travel history somewhat to avoid incidents. I know in the past, I'd heard that people in the US who had to do business in the middle east would often have two passports because there were enough countries that would take issue with you having visited Israel or Iran that you needed to keep them separate.

Three or more countries can participate in a Mexican standoff. If you want to visit them all, you can't show the same passport twice. Is there a limit on how many passports you can have?

I don't think this has been an issue in the last century. Countries will take a stance on it if it actually happens.

Remember Manafort had two passports or perhaps 3. Another reason you need more than one is some companies physically need to get your passport to add their visa, they may take a few weeks to process it. Big time travelers often have 2 passports for this reason.

The most common reason is that you used to have to surrender your passport to get a visa. Not too long ago (my first China trip), I had to leave my passport at the Chinese consulate in NYC for up to 30 days (where it went from there... who knows, but came back with a big ass full page sticker as a visa).

If you are still in possession of the original passport, the US will issue you a second passport so you can travel internationally during those events.

Same goes for applying for green cards (married a UK citizen? moving to the UK? They're going to take your passport for 30+ days).

I think some countries allow you to have multiple so you can visit counties that are at odds with each other and having a stand from one would cause issues getting into the other.

You can have however many passports the country wants to issue you.

You shouldn't even need to show a passport to fly through a country's airport if you transit through.

I wonder why the plane did not go directly to Lebanon - it is probably to avoid raising suspicion.

This is only true in some countries. It’s not in the USA for example, which requires that even connecting passengers clear the US border and customs at their point of entry.

And Canada.

They’ve finally started doing a better job of not requiring you to pickup your luggage while transiting only to drop it off another belt a minute later.

But that’s not universal.

I think the US and Canada are the exceptions rather than the rule. (Because of course they charge people for a transit visa)

It’s more likely that the “because” has to do with people claiming asylum.

If you don’t require transit visas it becomes fairly trivial to get into the US and claim asylum while supposedly in transit to somewhere else.

I don't understand that rationale. Even if you have a transit visa you could still claim asylum.

https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/can-you-...

The only trick would be if the government a priori refused transit visas to people suspected of seeking asylum without hearing the asylum case, which would be a gross violation of immigration law.

It wouldn’t violate the law to refuse a transit visa to someone who hasn’t yet made an asylum case and is currently located in a foreign country.

How could it?

I think you may be thinking of refusing to honor an existing valid visa at the border, rather than refusing to issue one at all before someone travels.

No country is required to honor a visa at the border. Even with a green card someone can be refused admittance to the country at the discretion of CBP.

Only citizens have an absolute right to entry.

I see. That makes sense.

9000 km by the great circle route is too far for executive jets. And you'd go via Turkey to avoid flying over Syria and Israel.

The real question is how he left in the first place.

Doesn’t Japan have exit controls?

Did they sneak him into the airport as maintenance personnel and then get him on a plane?

It’s a wild story if this article is to be believed:

https://nypost.com/2019/12/31/ex-nissan-honcho-carlos-ghosan...

(Hiding in a musicians’ case; used by musicians who really weren’t).

Surely this will be made into a movie or even a series.

There was a BBC article a couple of days ago, saying it had been reported he was helped by a band. They came to his place then left with him hidden in an instrument case (I would assume a Bass).

The airport part is not clear, but either they not very thorough when checking instruments for private jets, or they bribed someone I guess.

I was curious about this and didn't get an answer, but I found this:

Japan now supports tourism efforts but charging 1000¥ to leave the country! https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/04/10/national/japans...

Um, that's $10 USD.

> You shouldn't even need to show a passport to fly through a country's airport if you transit through

There are all kinds of manifest declaration requirements that would need to be ignored.

As a Lebanese citizen, I believe that he only needed to show a Lebanese ID card to enter the country.

Or nothing at all. Usually countries can’t deny entry by their own citizens, as long as you can prove who you are.

They often do make it hard to get on the plane there though. But once you get to a port of entry, you’re fine.

>as long as you can prove who you are

How can you prove who you are without an ID? Biometrics? Is logging in to Facebook enough?

There’s probably formalized policies everywhere on that.

Likely they can lookup your passport photos.

Since denying entry to a citizen can be a constitutional violation in many places, they’ll have some criteria for the documentation actually required.

Sending you back to the embassy will just move the problem elsewhere.

Things get dicier when there’s no records of you being a citizen (e.g. you were born elsewhere but acquired a citizenship because you were born to a citizen without registering it in any way).

> Things get dicier when there’s no records of you being a citizen

Perhaps because you successfully applied for British citizenship in the UK forty years ago but the government deleted all the records! Several instances of this came to light in the Windrush scandal a couple of years ago.

The moral: if your citizenship is even slightly interesting you need to keep your passport current.

I’m worried about the opposite situation...

Getting denied boarding because I am a citizen.

By lineage, I’m a citizen of an EU country.

And the EU is launching a “not a visa but sounds a lot like a visa” travel authorization program for visa exempt passengers.

Q1 will probably be: are you a citizen of any of these EU countries?

Legally, I’ll be obligated to trace all this lineage back, through countries that no longer exist and get a lot of paperwork.

Presumably I can’t renounce said citizenship until I prove that I have it first...

Are you really automatically a citizen? In the countries I'm familiar with, lineage might grant you the right to citizenship, but you still have to request it.

Based on my interpretation, yes, automatic.

The lineage is direct: both parents are citizen’s of that country’s successor.

But maybe it’s more discretionary in reality.

There’s always people willing to give you a hard time even if you’re in the right.

At least in Canada I know how to waste a lot of their time in return.

What you are describing sounds like a right for citizenship but not actual citizenship.

Naw, the law says you acquire citizenship by being born to that country’s citizens.

It doesn’t say “can acquire”, just “acquires”.

Not unlike an American or Canadian born abroad to natural-born Americans or Canadians.

According to the article, Turkey was unaware he was in the airplane.

> As reported in the news

Do you have a source for this? It would be unusual (and incompetent) for the Japanese to permit this.

"Ghosn carried second French passport with him after release from jail: source" in the Japan Times

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/01/02/national/carlos...

>Escaping state surveillance from Japan and then landing up in Lebanon via Turkey while the Japanese government has all three of one’s passports pretty much requires breaking lots of laws in at least three countries. (Likely more, e.g. money laundering.)

Plausible non-illegal way: go to embassy, report passport lost/stolen, get a new one.

NAL, Likely still illegal as you would be misrepresenting that you surrendered your passport and it is not lost nor stolen

Iunno, if you gave it to someone and don’t know where it is, the mental gymnastics to check the “Lost” box isn’t too difficult.

But I think they usually ask you to describe the circumstances of its loss.

I'm pretty sure the government who seized your passport won't look kindly upon you pretending you forgot you aren't allowed to have one.

Only if you're caught. Considering that the only reason you'd even attempt this would be to escape, your only concern would be not being able to return.

It’s really easy to get more passports.

> breaking lots of laws in at least three countries

Probably not. Crossing a border without your passport on you tends to be a pretty small offense.

Without a passport, probably, that’s true, if you contact country officials. But without customs clearance and border security check it can be a criminal offense.

An offense can simultaneously be both criminal and minor.

There‘s no such thing as „minor“ offense in some legal systems, so it’s better to check the law which applies in this specific case.

Normally it should be a fine at most.

Now crossing the border with no passport to escape another country's judiciary system is a whole different aggravating circumstance.

From a legal standpoint the country you're entering wouldn't typically consider that an aggravating circumstance. Lebanon and Turkey aren't responsible for enforcing Japan's laws.

That’s basically the definition of refugees seeking refuge and legally protected rather than aggravating.

That’s true, but if the refugee status is not confirmed later, it still can be qualified as a criminal offense (that’s the case in Germany and Russia, for example).

I figure most countries at that point focus on deportation rather than imprisonment.

They’d probably be perfectly happy if you skipped out to another country while awaiting the process.

And bail is likely if your record’s been clean while you’re awaiting the process (unless they found something they really didn’t like).

I guess the only real consequence is if you tried to immigrate there later.

Yes and no. Imprisonment costs money to the taxpayers, but it may also serve as deterrence. https://www.loc.gov/law/help/illegal-entry/chart.php?loclr=e...

> while the Japanese government has all three of one’s passports pretty much requires breaking lots of laws in at least three countries. (Likely more, e.g. money laundering.)

Man, I doubt anything of that was involved. People get paperless in and out of countries despite all of that security theatre every day.

It's not a secret that private flight immigration and security is a joke.

Martha Stewart in fact did not do any type of illegal financial transaction. After the Fed's case fell apart (that even if what they alleged what happened was true, it was not prosecutable) they got her for "lying" to them when she voluntary met with them to explain her trades. Fun fact is that the expert witness they used to show she lied to them was later charged with perjury.

https://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/07/weekinreview/ideas-trends...

AFAIK Martha Stewart wasn’t found guilty of SEC violations but rather the specious “lying to the FBI”.

Also conspiracy and obstruction of an agency proceeding. She settled with the SEC on civil charges.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Stewart#Sentence

At least some of that (the nebulous obstruction of agency proceeding) relies or stems from the “lying” part.

> Not particularly well informed on this

This will help you understand everything about Ghosn case.

"Debito.org’s stance on the Carlos Ghosn Case, at last: A boardroom coup making “thin legal soup” that might shame Japan’s “hostage justice” judicial system into reform"

https://www.debito.org/?p=15548

Reply on news.ycombinator.com