Canadian prosecutors lay out case for why Huawei CFO Meng should be extradited to the United States

Canadian prosecutors on Wednesday laid out the country’s case for why Huawei finance chief Meng Wanzhou should be extradited to the United States.

Meng is in a Vancouver court this week for the most crucial hearing yet in her fight to prevent extradition to the United States. US prosecutors want her to stand trial on charges of bank fraud and violating US sanctions against Iran.

She claims what she’s accused of doing doesn’t break Canadian law. But Canada’s attorney general claims that bank fraud, which Meng is accused of, is illegal in both countries.

At issue is an element of Canadian extradition law called “double criminality.” Under Canadian law, in order for a person to be extradited from the country, the conduct for which they will be tried in the destination country must also constitute a crime in Canada. If a Canadian federal judge determines that standard is met, the extradition process will move forward. If not, the person can be released.

Robert Frater, a lawyer for the Canadian attorney general, told the court on Wednesday that fraud is at the center of the case, and it is a crime in both countries.

“Our argument is not a complicated one,” Frater said. “Lying to a bank in order to get financial services that create a risk of economic prejudice is fraud. Fraud, not sanctions violation, is the essence of this case.”

Meng’s defense team argue that because Canada does not have sanctions on Iran, the alleged conduct would not be considered illegal under Canadian law. Her defense team said the allegations do not amount to a fraud charge because under Canadian law, a fraud charge requires loss or risk of loss, and the risk of loss in this case stemmed only from the US sanctions.

The United States has alleged that Meng and Huawei misled bank HSBC about its relationship with Iranian firm Skycom in order to obtain financial services, putting the bank at risk of violating Iran sanctions.

Frater argued that Meng’s alleged misrepresentation not only put HSBC at risk of violating US sanctions, but also put its reputation at risk, and deprived it of its ability to make financial decisions based on facts.

“Any time you’re giving out money based on a misrepresentation, you’re at risk,” Frater said.

This week’s hearing is not meant to examine the truthfulness of the allegations — both sides are arguing on the assumption that they are true. Both Meng and Huawei have denied the US allegations.

“We trust in Canada’s judicial system which will prove Ms Meng’s innocence,” the company said in a statement Monday.

In addition to her executive role, Meng is also the daughter of Huawei’s CEO and founder, Ren Zhengfei.

The incident spurred political tensions between the United States, China and Canada.

Following Meng’s arrest, two Canadians were detained in China, in what was largely seen as retaliation. China said at the time there was no comparison between the two cases.

US President Donald Trump also suggested that Meng was a bargaining chip in US-China negotiations when, just over a week after her arrest, he said he would consider intervening in the case for her release, if Beijing agreed to a trade deal.

At a press conference Tuesday, Canadian Prime Minister shot down the idea of freeing Meng in exchange for the release of the Canadians detained in China.

“We are a country of the rule of law and we will abide by the rule of law,” Trudeau said.

Some of the testimony in court this week touched on the political nature of the case.

Eric Gottardi, a lawyer on Meng’s defense team, told the court Tuesday that if Canada agrees to extradite her, the country would be giving effect “to (foreign) criminal laws that we have rejected in Canada.” Canada, along with the United States and other international allies, lifted economic sanctions against Iran in 2016. The United States reimposed those sanctions in 2018.

“We don’t have any prohibition with dealing with the economic interests in Iran,” Gottardi said. “We in the Canadian state take pride in our independence and our uniquely Canadian approach to criminal law. And that fundamental principle of double criminality ensures that we are not a participant in the prosecution of offenses that run contrary to Canadian core values.”

But prosecutors argued that it is not the role of the extradition judge at this stage in the proceedings to “stand up for Canadian sovereignty,” but rather to analyze the conduct alleged in the case and determine if it could be prosecuted under Canadian laws.

The prosecution wrapped up its argument on Wednesday, after just half a day’s testimony, in comparison to the day and a half that it took the defense to make its argument and answer questions from the judge.