Hacker News Reader

Comment by rgbrenner | Hacker News Reader

Meng was arrested for fraud for the claims she made to banks as part of the sale of HP servers to Iran. She knew it was illegal, so she lied to cover it up so the banks would transfer money to Hauwei. This is the US.. fraud is a crime. If you or me went into a bank and lied to get a loan, you would get arrested too.

Meng wasn't arrested for selling goods to Iran. The truth is Huawei is free to sell to Iran. But action have consequences... and if Huawei wants to sell to Iran, the US isn't going to help them do it. They can't use our banks, buy our equipment, or sell their goods here. They can make a choice: do business with Iran or do business with the US. That's their free choice to make.

Huawei is upset because they want to sell to Iran, but still do business here. They don't like the consequences of their actions. They want to force the US to engage in commerce that we've decided we don't want to engage in.

View on HN

From report it looks like it was the HSBC bank which was involved, and it looks like the banking transactions was executed in Hong Kong. But it isn't an US or Canadian bank, how does the rest of the argument follow?

> it isn't an US or Canadian bank

The U.S. dollars HSBC transferred liaised HSBC’s American offices. The fraud was conducted against an American entity with respect to U.S. dollars. Bank fraud is also a crime in Canada, allowing for extradition.

The fact that the fraud was done relating to US dollars does not give the US government sovereignty over a foreign citizen. The fraud was not conducted against an American entity, it was committed against a foreign entity with a liaison towards a US affiliate. In any reasonable world this would mean that the US affiliate would be liable for damages, then hold the mother company liable for it, which would then under local law hold the fraudster accountable for the damages.

You're conflating criminal law with civil law. Besides this, the US makes it's financial infrastructure available to those who play by its rules. Your argument about how dare the US seek criminal charges against those who utilize that infrastructure is completely missing the point.

Well no, I'd have no issue with the US going after the bank then the bank going after the person who did the fraud in the jurisdiction where the fraud happened. The issue is that the US has no right to prosecute fraud that happened between non-US entities outside US borders using their own laws.

I know that the US is one of the outliers of the world in that it considers that the entirety of the globe is within their criminal jurisdiction. That is an insane idea in 2020.

Since when do banks criminally charge people?

Why is it an insane idea in 2020 for a country to criminally charge those who violate it's laws?

The insane idea is that US criminal law applies worldwide, not only on US soil.

Banks do no criminally charge people, but they can go after the civil damages to recuperate their incurred costs due to the fraud and have huge power to motivate prosecutors to press charges. In some foreign countries, bank can actually go after people criminally. If the foreign country in which the bank operates will not punish the fraudster then they can pull out of that country.

That is not atypical - countries can and should protect their interests and the interests of their citizens (see GDPR).

Huawei wanted to play both sides, and by doing so, opened themselves up to these charges. They were under no obligation to use the US financial infrastructure, and only through its use did they become covered by its laws.

This isn't about Huawei though. If they sue a company for that that's something that I would wholeheartedly support, and eventually Huawei can entirely stop operating in the US if they disagree.

This is about an individual being charged and extradited to the US that is not a US citizen for a crime that happened between non-US actors outside of the US.

This thread is so interesting. I have no idea how laws work. Most people in this thread have no idea either but they're convinced Huawei or their CFO is justly condemned. It's even funnier that they can't even tell the difference between two!

IANAL but bring a lot of knowledge from a corporate structure perspective. A company is nothing but a contract that is agreed upon between a group of people. While there is a distinction between airing a company vs an individual (concept of limited liability), this isn’t the case when we are talking about fraud. Fraud exposes the board and management for charges. In this case, she was on the board and she is also the CFO. It is fair game that she is held responsible for fraud. Now who should hold her responsible for it is another question. Does US have the right to do so? I personally think so. What value would the US financial fabric have if a company HQ’d in an extra territorial jurisdiction is able to conduct fraud elsewhere, using banks that are global? How would your idea that US cannot charge the CFO extrapolate is a company is HQ’d in Cayman Islands?

It is quite simple how it should work and indeed how it works for literally all countries except the US.

I have no issue with the CFO of the company being held criminally accountable for fraud if it is the case. However, this is not the purview of the US. It was fraud against a non-US entity outside of US jurisdiction by a non-US citizen. It should thus not be tried under US law. If the US is unhappy that they cannot apply their law abroad they are free to pull out of global trade.

If it is obvious that the Cayman Islands turn a blind eye to fraud and do not prosecute fraudsters, the banks are free to stop doing business in the Cayman Islands in order to avoid having to pay for damages out of their own pockets. Otherwise, the federal government can also impose restrictions on the Cayman Island's access to the US banking system.

This is a very simple truth - the US Financial system is built to enforce economic violence against various innocent entities. I have absolutely no sympathy towards maintaining it and maintaining its power over the world without the US having to be accountable to the consequences of too strict restrictions, as happens under the system as it is currently, that gives the US Government fantastic and unjustified privilege and power.

> The insane idea is that US criminal law applies worldwide

If a man in India scams a Russian or German, that should be outside the realm of Russian or German law? And then if that man travels to Russia or Germany, Russia or Germany should not be allowed to arrest him, because he was in India when the crime was committed?

It takes mental gymnastics to take a series of material lies made to a bank to obtain U.S. dollar financing for the violation of U.S. sanctions in respect of American products, and brand it as extraterritoriality. The U.S. absolutely has extraterritoriality problems. This isn't one of those.

HSBC is neither Russian nor German, even though they do business with the Russian and German economy and government.

> HSBC is neither Russian nor German

And Meng isn’t Indian. It’s an analogy.

Meng is Chinese, the analogy works perfectly. HSBC is an entity from a third-party country.

> the analogy works perfectly

Correct, which is why the jurisdiction and extradition make sense.

Glad we agree.

So you're saying that china would be completely within its rights to extradite, prosecute, and punish a US citizen who made fun of their leader on US soil if that citizen ever sets foot in a jurisdiction that has an extradition treaty with china?

If an Indian company defrauds a Russian bank, could they be in trouble in Germany, because the transaction was done in British pounds? Seems quite a tenuous stretch.

>The fact that the fraud was done relating to US dollars does not give the US government sovereignty over a foreign citizen.

The US government disagrees. And they control the banking sector because most FX transactions actually go Currency A->Dollars->Currency B. So their opinion is what matters. If you get caught selling to a sanctioned entity you'll be put on a blacklist and nearly every bank around the world will refuse to work with you. It's a financial death penalty.

This is why US sanctions are so nefarious.

As I understand it, it follows because HSBC and has a major US presence and is therefore subject to US banking restrictions. It makes sense if you consider that the money from the sale, once it enters the HSBC system could easily flow back to the US.

There's also the matter that it was American equipment being sold and Huawei would have also needed to lie to the US government when the equipment was exported.

This is more difficult to get a foreign government to extradite for since there is a doctrine (at least in Canada, but I believe also in other western countries) that it would have needed to be a crime in Canada for the offence to be extraditable (Canada did not have Iran sanctions at the time).

Thus, the extradition case so far has focused on the fraud of misrepresenting oneself to the bank. Certainly a crime in Canada.

Sure, but I find it difficult to justify that this should be tried in a US court under control of the US government, for a crime between two non-American actors outside the United States.

The fact that it was about selling US equipment seems to be completely orthogonal to the crime (which is fraud), as it is not illegal for a non-US citizen outside the US to sell American goods bought to another non-US actor.

The fact that Huawei would have to lie to the US government also seems orthogonal as Huawei did not lie to the US government, and if it did then Huawei would be liable.

This simply seems to me like the US trying to impose it's power over foreign transactions.

HSBC has a United States banking license, employs tens of thousands of Americans (in America) and is traded on the New York Stock exchange. Thus it (a) has to abide by US finance laws and (b) is afforded some US protections.

If having ones head office overseas would provide immunity from US laws it wouldn't be a very effective system would it? :-)

>Huawei did not lie to the US government

That remains to be seen (as I understand it - maybe you have evidence to the contrary?), but I can't imagine how they would export so much equipment without doing so.

>This simply seems to me like the US trying to impose it's power over foreign transactions.

I agree to an extent. But since everyone (especially banks) need to do business in the United States it's unavoidable.

In that case, HSBC should be held liable for damages and should sue the party in order to recover them. If they cannot recover damages in that jurisdiction then they should either stop operating there or stop operating in the US.

It's pretty much indefensible to me that someone that has nothing to do with the US operating outside the US would be tried in the US for a crime they allegedly commited elsewhere.

>In that case, HSBC should be held liable for damages

I've no love for HSBC (at all) but in this instance it appears they are the victim of fraudulent representations made by Huawei.

Your "solution" proposes prosecuting not only an innocent party, but one of the victims? That's an ... ummm ... interesting take.

Well no, that is not my solution. That is the only ethical way the US could enforce sanctions. The solution would be to put the Iran deal back up, but I digress.

Yes, there is absolutely no way of enforcing sanctions without prosecuting innocent parties. The only way that the US can get foreign banks not to deal with Iran is by punishing them, even if they were the victims of fraud, the bank would then have to decide if they want to continue operating in the US and try to recoup their losses by going after the fraudster, not operate in the jurisdiction of the fraudster if that is impossible, or not deal with Iran at all (in which case a competitor will). Otherwise, they can also stop dealing with the US.

>even if they were the victims of fraud, the bank would then have to decide if they want to continue operating in the US and try to recoup their losses by going after the fraudster

So you're proposing that the government shouldn't prosecute fraud criminally, and it should be up to the banks go after the perpetrators in civil court instead?

No, I think that the local government where the fraud happened should pursue criminal charges if appropriate, not the US government.

You can be suef in civil and criminal court at the same time.

How does this square with jurisdictions that don't enforce those laws because the crimes benefit them? Should russian cybercriminals who victimize americans be allowed go to whatever country they please, knowing that they won't be prosecuted in their home country (because the government turns a blind eye to their activities), and can't be prosecuted/extradited in whatever country they travel to?

In that case you stop doing business in that jurisdiction.

In this case neither perpetrator nor victim of the fraud appear to be US entities, so your example of Russian cybercriminals victimizing Americans doesn't exactly apply. Unless the country requesting the extradition of said Russian from Canada is, dunno, Australia, for some unrelated beef they have, using the crime against Americans as a convenient excuse.

But in this case, the US entity is being victimized. Specifically, they were tricked into violating US sanctions, which can carry criminal penalties for them. I guess you argue that we can simply decriminalize this for the US entity, but that opens a huge loophole for bypassing sanctions. Say you're china and you want to buy some American semiconductors (which are currently banned from being sold into china). All you need to do is set up a company in Russia, buy the semiconductors, promise that they won't be later transferred into china (wink wink), then import it into china.

Bank may not be an US entity is what it appears. Also the bank is supposed to do due diligence. Careful reading of the judgement, indicate that none of the liabilities from the transaction are possibly active, ie, all payments have been made and the matter closed, with no issue of defaults, etc. The question being considered is the 'risk of reputational damage to the bank', which does it sound like a criminal matter?

But they have everything to do with the US, that is the problem. They have multiple divisions with multiple agreements. Phone components, systems, software, all under export controls and they aren't abiding by the agreements they have signed. I'm not sure where you're going with this. How do they have nothing to do with the US?

Then go after Huawei, which is an entity operating in the US? But that is not what happened; Huawei is not being sued, an individual that never dealt with a US entity is being sued for an alleged crime between non-US entities outside the US.

She's an elected officer of the company, and thus under US Law and most countries for the matter. She as an individual was a part of and oversaw the actions and complaints alleged. There's no ambiguity at all.

Then prosecute her under the country where she allegedly committed fraud.

>Then go after Huawei, which is an entity operating in the US? But that is not what happened; Huawei is not being sued

They're not being sued, but they are being charged with:

> Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, Bank Fraud, and Theft of Trade Secrets Among Nearly Two Dozen Charges

https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/chinese-telecom-firm-huawei...

Good, then you can leave the individual non-US citizen that is outside of the US and did not commit a crime in the United States outside of US Court.

When someone commits fraud remotely, it is often recognized in the location where the fraud occurred, not where it originated from. It doesn't matter if you're hacking a bank computer, lying through misrepresented paperwork, or any other form of fraud or remote crime. And when businesses do business internationally, their execs can be held accountable for crimes their businesses do.

Here's a different but similar example:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/business/volkswagen-diese...

This is completely different. Volkswagen directly lied to the US government. And even then, Germany refused extradition for very good reasons, they had to wait for him to go to the US.

This was someone allegedly defrauding an entity that is not American, let alone the US Government, outside of US jurisdiction, being deported to a jurisdiction in which they committed no crime. It is entirely ridiculous to equivocate the two cases.

Branches of HSBC inside of the US definitely operate under US law. It is illegal to defraud banks in the US. It is also illegal to defraud banks in Canada.

She did not commit a crime in the US, correct.

What she did do was come to Canada after committing what is certainly a crime in both Canada and the US. If you commit a crime elsewhere and then come to Canada, you can, and should be held accountable. Many, many criminals have been prosecuted here, or extradited from here, for crimes that weren't committed here.

We're not just talking about bank fraud (that just happened to be the easiest thing to pin on her for the purpose of extradition). Huawei has long been known in intelligence circles for stealing Canadian IP as well. At the very, very least, she is complicit in such crimes. I'm glad the US is doing something about it, since we (Canada) don't have the international clout needed to stand up to Chinese bullying.

Yes, she committed a crime against the US outside its' jurisdiction. She then made the mistake of coming to Canada, after having committed what would be considered a crime in Canada. Make no mistake. Aside from the sanctions violations, most of the allegations Huawei is facing also apply to Canada. She shouldn't have come here. Now she needs to face the music.

You're equivocating the word "in". She allegedly committed something that is a crime in Canadian and US law, but she did not commit it in US jurisdiction, nor against a US entity. As such, there is no reason for her to be extradited to the US. I don't care that it was against the US, if it was outside of US jurisdiction then the US has no business prosecuting anyone.

Just because what she did is against US interests doesn't mean that the US has the right to judge her according to their own laws. That is entirely ridiculous.

As a Canadian citizen, I would feel that it would be 100% justified for her to be extradited to the jurisdiction in which she committed the alleged crime. But we aren't talking about this.

>nor against a US entity

Sigh. You didn't read the link I provided you over three hours ago, did you?

C'mon, be honest :)

> The Eastern District of New York charged Huawei, two of its affiliates, and Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzou with 13 counts surrounding the company’s misrepresentations to the U.S. government and four financial institutions regarding its business in Iran. The indictment charges that the company used financial institutions operating in the United States to process transactions involving millions of dollars in furtherance of Huawei’s Iran-based business.

Emphasis is mine. Quote is from the link I previously provided you -

https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/chinese-telecom-firm-huawei...

That page has other interesting links at the bottom you should also read. Here's a quote from one (again, all emphasis is mine).

> According to the indictment, Huawei relied on its global banking relationships for banking services that included processing U.S.-dollar transactions through the United States. U.S. laws and regulations generally prohibited these banks from processing transactions related to Iran through the United States. The banks could have faced civil or criminal penalties for processing transactions that violated U.S. laws or regulations. Relying on the repeated misrepresentations by Huawei, these banks continued their banking relationships with Huawei. One bank cleared more than $100 million worth of Skycom-related transactions through the United States between 2010 and 2014.

Here's the best part:

> In furtherance of this scheme to defraud, and as alleged in the indictment, Huawei and its principals repeatedly lied to U.S. government authorities about Huawei’s business in Iran in submissions to the U.S. government, and in responses to government inquiries. For example, Huawei provided false information to the U.S. Congress regarding whether Huawei’s business in Iran violated any U.S. law. Similarly, as indicated in the indictment, in 2007 — months before Huawei orchestrated the purported sale of Skycom to another Huawei-controlled entity — Huawei’s founder falsely stated to FBI agents that Huawei did not have any direct dealings with Iranian companies and that Huawei operated in compliance with all U.S. export laws.

And this is a series of crimes actually committed on U.S. soil:

> In 2017, when Huawei became aware of the government’s investigation, Huawei and its subsidiary Huawei USA allegedly tried to obstruct the investigation by making efforts to move witnesses with knowledge about Huawei’s Iran-based business to the PRC, and beyond the jurisdiction of the U.S. government, and by concealing and destroying evidence of Huawei’s Iran-based business that was located in the United States.

The above three blockquotes are from: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/chinese-telecommunications-co...

That just covers the Iran related part. Do you want me to go through the stolen trade secrets part? Okay sure, here goes. Once again, emphasis is mine:

> According to the indictment, in 2012 Huawei began a concerted effort to steal information on a T-Mobile phone-testing robot dubbed “Tappy.” In an effort to build their own robot to test phones before they were shipped to T-Mobile and other wireless carriers, Huawei engineers violated confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements with T-Mobile by secretly taking photos of “Tappy,” taking measurements of parts of the robot, and in one instance, stealing a piece of the robot so that the Huawei engineers in China could try to replicate it. After T-Mobile discovered and interrupted these criminal activities, and then threatened to sue, Huawei produced a report falsely claiming that the theft was the work of rogue actors within the company and not a concerted effort by Huawei corporate entities in the United States and China. As emails obtained in the course of the investigation reveal, the conspiracy to steal secrets from T-Mobile was a company-wide effort involving many engineers and employees within the two charged companies.

> As part of its investigation, FBI obtained emails revealing that in July 2013, Huawei offered bonuses to employees based on the value of information they stole from other companies around the world, and provided to Huawei via an encrypted email address.

So, tell me again how Meng, as CFO of this wonderful company, didn't do anything against a US entity?

FWIW HSBC has also 'actively circumvented rules designed to “block transactions involving terrorists, drug lords, and rogue regimes.”'. I don't see their CFOs arrested.

Then there's the question of Banco do Brasil, Bank of America, Bank of Guam, Bank of Moscow, Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, Barclays, BNP Paribas, Clearstream Banking, Commerzbank, Compass, Crédit Agricole, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, ING, Intesa Sanpaolo, JP Morgan Chase, National Bank of Abu Dhabi, National Bank of Pakistan, PayPal, RBS (ABN Amro), Société Générale, Toronto-Dominion Bank, Trans-Pacific National Bank, Standard Chartered, and Wells Fargo all transacting with Iran (https://archive.is/kyKGf) and not having their CFOs arrested.

> I find it difficult to justify

The U.S. is the hegemon. It's going to use its weight to push people around, especially if it has a chance to push China around. It did.

When the 2008 financial crisis happened, some Swiss banks were in crisis and the FBI managed to finally break through Swiss bank secrecy in exchange for bailout funds (for U.S. operations). Suddenly tons of Americans hiding money in Switzerland had to make "voluntary disclosures" and pay tax. That's what being a hegemon allows you to do.

>>> As I understand it, it follows because HSBC and has a major US presence and is therefore subject to US banking restrictions.

HSBC operates in many countries and is notably the market leader in Hong Kong and China to facilitate transfer of grey money to the West. It has little regards to US laws.

Local companies only submit to their local jurisdictions (consider an international company as a lose agglomerate of local branches scattered across the world). The US can try to show off but it has little influence over what happens in the rest of the world.

If any government wanted to shut down its local HSBC, they'd have done it long ago (and the officials would lose their primary ways to clear money).

US extraterritorial laws are far reaching and used as way to promote US interested. Two foreign entities can be subject to them if the transaction is done in USD for exemple.

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/aggressive-extraterrito...

I always wondered why for example the FIFA corruption matters are being dealt with through the US justice system, while it appears hardly to have any link with the US, such that US authorities have any jurisdiction on it.

That time too there was much concern over the territorial overreach of the US judicial system, esp in Europe.

I'm not sure I understand your point.

Rightly or wrongly, HSBC is bound to certain US laws if it wants to maintain its US presence (including its listing on the NYSE). HSBC has made a choice to abide by that, and so they are co-operating in this matter.

Sure, HSBC could choose not to abide/co-operate and face the consequences. But that's not what's happening.

So, again, I'm not sure what point you're making.

HSBC USA and HSBC in other countries aren't the same company. They are separate legal entities, that might be owned by a company in foreign country.

Sure. But the reality is that, for one, HSBC Holdings (the parent entity) trades on the NYSE and secondly, HSBC USA accounts for roughly 10% of HSBC Holdings revenue.

While 10% doesn't seem like much, that's direct revenue[0] only. I'm willing to bet that withdrawal from the US market would have a negative effect on their revenue equal to many multiples that amount. After all, who would do business with a commercial bank that can't access the worlds wealthiest market?

And what would not being able to sell your stock in the worlds wealthiest market have on its' price? I'm not an economist (IANAE?) but I wouldn't be surprised if total withdrawal from the US resulted in a 30-60% collapse in their stock price. Yes, that's a totally made up number :) but I think you get my point:

Legal entities aside, HSBC Holdings is duty-bound to comply with US regulations as much as possible in order to satisfy it's investors.

[0] https://www.hsbc.com/-/files/hsbc/investors/hsbc-results/201...

>>> who would do business with a commercial bank that can't access the worlds wealthiest market?

How about every regional and national banks? You realize thousands of banks provide their local markets and have little dealings with the US? The fact that HSBC only does 10% revenues in the US shows how negligible that market is to them.

US stock is mostly an investment hold by US pension funds. If the company is ruined or kicked out of the stock exchange, it's by far and large the US population who will take the hit. I doubt the US government would attempt that because it's a self defeating move and they've repeatedly shown they want to bail pensions not destroy them.

>How about every regional and national banks? You realize thousands of banks provide their local markets and have little dealings with the US?

When I wrote "who would do business with a commercial bank that can't access the worlds wealthiest market?" it was obviously done to illustrate what a massive effect withdrawal from the US market would be. Of course there are alternatives. Of course there are many entities that don't need access to the US market. Don't be ridiculous. You know what I meant.

How about I rephrase it as "which of HSBC largest, most profitable customers would stick with it, without access to the US market". Happy now?

>The fact that HSBC only does 10% revenues in the US shows how negligible that market is to them.

I strongly disagree, based on the reasons I already mentioned, and for the additional reason is that it presents a massive untapped market opportunity.

Oh and, HSBC's actual slogan is "The World's Local Bank". Being "global" is literally part of their value proposition.

But again, I'll humor you. Let's says their stock would "only" take a 10-20% hit. The point I'm making still stands:

Legal entities aside, HSBC Holdings is duty-bound to comply with US regulations as much as possible in order to satisfy it's investors.

>US stock is mostly an investment hold by US pension funds. If the company is ruined or kicked out of the stock exchange, it's by far and large the US population who will take the hit. I doubt the US government would attempt that because it's a self defeating move and they've repeatedly shown they want to bail pensions not destroy them.

That seems to support my point. What point (in the context of the thread you joined), are you making exactly?

You seem to be suggesting that the legality of actions (as perceived by the U.S.) of HSBC elsewhere in the world have little to no effect on HSBC USA. The facts suggest otherwise:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSBC#Controversies

I think that makes little practical difference. It’s like pointing a gun to one’s head and claiming they have a choice between getting shot or doing what they say.

Why doesn't the US have the freedom to choose what commerce they want to engage in?

You have that freedom: if a company does something you don't like, you go to their competitor. You would (rightly) be outraged if the cops showed up and forced you to spend money at a company you hated.

Why doesnt china have the freedom to choose what commerce they want to engage in? If the US didnt want the chinese selling HP servers to Iran, they should not have sold them to China. If China jailed Tim Cook for selling iPhones to Taiwan that were intended for export to Europe, the US would rightly flip out.

China does have that freedom. The difference is, Tim Cook didn't sign any export control documents, and as of current, they don't exist. In the US the export control documents do exist, Huawei was a signatory as part of parting in the American Economy & Commercial sector. So this analogy doesn't make sense.

Just as China doesn't allow Western products in their markets without a substantial consideration to China, usually in the form of joint partnerships with domestic companies vs direct sales. That's their right, the western companies wishing to engage in the market often times will find out their cost / benefit and act accordingly. All of the companies are held and managed under Chinese law and as such many have had things stripped from them.

A rather hyperbolic comment. We don't do business with Iran- simple as that.

This might be a silly question, but why on earth would China trade USD with Iran ? Then can just barter with Iranians for oil (and none would be wiser).

USD is a lot more liquid, in the financial sense, than literal oil. So maybe that's a reason to prefer it?

Far too simplistic of an analysis.

> That's their free choice to make.

I don't disagree with the US action here, and Huawei is as bad as it gets, but calling it a "free choice" is absurd. It's like saying, it's your free choice to not use google or facebook to advertise your consumer-facing product.

It's not about it being a devil's bargain of a free choice -- there is no choice here. It's about flaunting the rules because you don't have any ethical standards, or believe yourself to be above them. And the US doesn't really care much about this specific flaunting. Bank fraud was so much the norm that it led to the 2008 housing crash. Our current president almost certainly has a lot to worry about if bank fraud means you can be detained on 3rd party foreign soil.

Huawai isn't an independent actor, held accountable to international corporate standards; it is a part of the Chinese state. Meng's arrest was not a mere crime of bank fraud, but a high profile political action. That China took "reciprocal" action is enough evidence of that, regardless of any personal opinion on the matter.

This is the reason we need a less globalized world where dangerous regimes like the United States can't claim most of the world's commerce through imperialism then turn around and gatekeep because "its theirs"

While I'm sure you're feeling pressure from the CCP to make an argument like this, I hope you at least realize your argument is largely undermined when it's made in the context of Huawei literally lying about - and trying to normalize - doing business with a dangerous regime.

I'm Algerian so your tinfoil hat must be malfunctioning.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com