General > General Technical Chat
Huawei arrest, US-China relations and effect on electronics industry
<< < (14/61) > >>
Rick Law:

--- Quote from: blueskull on December 10, 2018, 05:15:18 pm ---
--- Quote from: Rick Law on December 09, 2018, 08:29:47 pm ---Yeah, she is the CFO, so if indeed laws were broken, she could be held liable.  It is as yet unclear what exact law she broke because I am reading different things on different news outlets.

--- End quote ---

If she indeed violated some export laws, most likely she did it in China. US has no jurisdiction in things happening in China.
By your logic, China should put everyone in jail, if they ever participated any anti-communism acts or any other movements against Chinese government, even abroad.
By that definition, half Chinese-Americans living in China should go to jail.

--- End quote ---

So far, I am sure that the law she allegedly broke is Iran trade related but I am not sure which one.  I would like to be able to narrow down to the U.S.C. numbers from official sources to be able to discuss the issue on firm grounds.  Thus far, most news description is merely "violating US Iran Sanction..." or similar which is no help.

But you did raised an interesting point in your reply: "If she indeed violated some export laws, most likely she did it in China. US has no jurisdiction in things happening in China."

The point you raised is the reason I hope whichever law(s) she allegedly broke is one of those laws that re-affirms UN sanction originated from NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty).  Re-affirm as in "if you break this UN sanction, it is breaking US law".  (I believe) An NPT driven UN sanction should have wide international support since NPT is the most-signed UN treaty.  That would be least disruptive to international trade.  If the law in question is one of those "domestic" US laws but Huawei is constrained by applicable US laws because they have an operation in the USA...  While I can see the rationale behind that, but I think that link would be too tenuous.
cdev:

--- Quote from: Rick Law on December 09, 2018, 08:29:47 pm ---
It is pretty typical in the western world that officers of the company are legally responsible for the action of the company - hence they are officers of the company.  It may seem odd at first, but if you think about Bhopal (India) disaster where over 3700 died by actions of a company, you would agree the responsible officers of the company should have some responsibility if the actions were careless or illegal.

Typically for a publicly owned company in the USA, officers are corporate VP level minimum - divisional/subsidiary entities' VP would be liable only to the extend of that division/subsidiary.  In some instances, it extends down to lower level depending on specific role.  For example, you are a grunt working on a buy-out/merger... (you guys are smart here, I don't need to go into the details of how/why there would be legal constrains for one with advance knowledge about pending buy-out/merger).

In the case of CFO/CEO regarding financial statements, after one of the collapses, a new law to more clearly spell out the responsibilities was passed.    [I don't recollect when the law was passed, could have been Enron, or could have been the 2008 collapse].

Yeah, she is the CFO, so if indeed laws were broken, she could be held liable.  It is as yet unclear what exact law she broke because I am reading different things on different news outlets.

[Edit:] added the paragraph about Bhopal disaster that was missed when I first clicked save.

--- End quote ---

I think that statements from official sounding people in the years after the Bhopal disaster that the now defunct company took responsibility are likely to have been a hoax. 

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster
beanflying:

--- Quote from: Rick Law on December 10, 2018, 09:42:38 pm ---
So far, I am sure that the law she allegedly broke is Iran trade related but I am not sure which one.  I would like to be able to narrow down to the U.S.C. numbers from official sources to be able to discuss the issue on firm grounds.  Thus far, most news description is merely "violating US Iran Sanction..." or similar which is no help.

But you did raised an interesting point in your reply: "If she indeed violated some export laws, most likely she did it in China. US has no jurisdiction in things happening in China."

The point you raised is the reason I hope whichever law(s) she allegedly broke is one of those laws that re-affirms UN sanction originated from NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty).  Re-affirm as in "if you break this UN sanction, it is breaking US law".  (I believe) An NPT driven UN sanction should have wide international support since NPT is the most-signed UN treaty.  That would be least disruptive to international trade.  If the law in question is one of those "domestic" US laws but Huawei is constrained by applicable US laws because they have an operation in the USA...  While I can see the rationale behind that, but I think that link would be too tenuous.

--- End quote ---

I thought that was what the ICC was for the UN legal system?

Other than being a member of the UN the USA doesn't have jurisdiction other than the Uni Lateral action it takes all to often I suspect. Rubbery charges to an 'alleged' crime of the UN sanctions for extradition to another 'Country' and not to the ICC spells BS and Bluster if they keep pushing UN sanctions.

If she and Huawei are being charged with breaching US laws on exports of goods indirectly headed for Iran then they need to prove it with a fully traceable paper trail of all parts or items. Good luck with 'demanding' Huawei release its Chinese documents to the USA.

If the USA is going to use a really rubbery link in that Huawei has Businesses in the USA and another corporate entity exported 'product' (not necessarily of USA origin or even exported from the USA) so your 'company' is guilty of breaking USA sanctions on imports to Iran banning export of anything to Iran. This is so thin it will break.
edy:

--- Quote from: 3roomlab on December 11, 2018, 01:32:32 am ---the retaliation begins

https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-hit-with-iphone-sales-ban-in-china-qualcomm-says-1544450774

but why only older models? surely they can find reasons to also ban everything else fruity totally?

--- End quote ---

This seems to be more of an Apple vs. Qualcomm issue as they are fighting each other around the globe regarding patent infringements and payments for the privilege of using certain chips in devices. However, it was expected China would look the other way and not accept Qualcomm's argument.... allowing iPhones to still be sold. Perhaps the latest tensions of trade and Huawei tainted the judgement here and they favored a win for Qualcomm to stifle Apple iPhone sales.

As you noted, it only affects older phones and it is unlikely that it can really be enforced as there is a healthy market within and outside of China where there are plenty of people who are moving these devices around, refurbishing, etc. I am not sure how Qualcomm is going to stop it and how. What you need is Chinese military blockade of Foxconn stopping all new iPhones from being made in their factory. Then Apple can move manufacturing back to the USA and charge $2000 for their next model.... oh wait, we're already paying that:

https://vancouversun.com/technology/personal-tech/canadians-pricing-for-new-iphones-range-from-1029-to-1999

 :-DD
Rick Law:

--- Quote from: beanflying on December 11, 2018, 12:37:53 am ---
--- Quote from: Rick Law on December 10, 2018, 09:42:38 pm ---
So far, I am sure that the law she allegedly broke is Iran trade related but I am not sure which one.  I would like to be able to narrow down to the U.S.C. numbers from official sources to be able to discuss the issue on firm grounds.  Thus far, most news description is merely "violating US Iran Sanction..." or similar which is no help.

But you did raised an interesting point in your reply: "If she indeed violated some export laws, most likely she did it in China. US has no jurisdiction in things happening in China."

The point you raised is the reason I hope whichever law(s) she allegedly broke is one of those laws that re-affirms UN sanction originated from NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty).  Re-affirm as in "if you break this UN sanction, it is breaking US law".  (I believe) An NPT driven UN sanction should have wide international support since NPT is the most-signed UN treaty.  That would be least disruptive to international trade.  If the law in question is one of those "domestic" US laws but Huawei is constrained by applicable US laws because they have an operation in the USA...  While I can see the rationale behind that, but I think that link would be too tenuous.

--- End quote ---

I thought that was what the ICC was for the UN legal system?

Other than being a member of the UN the USA doesn't have jurisdiction other than the Uni Lateral action it takes all to often I suspect. Rubbery charges to an 'alleged' crime of the UN sanctions for extradition to another 'Country' and not to the ICC spells BS and Bluster if they keep pushing UN sanctions.

If she and Huawei are being charged with breaching US laws on exports of goods indirectly headed for Iran then they need to prove it with a fully traceable paper trail of all parts or items. Good luck with 'demanding' Huawei release its Chinese documents to the USA.

If the USA is going to use a really rubbery link in that Huawei has Businesses in the USA and another corporate entity exported 'product' (not necessarily of USA origin or even exported from the USA) so your 'company' is guilty of breaking USA sanctions on imports to Iran banning export of anything to Iran. This is so thin it will break.

--- End quote ---

re: "I thought that was what the ICC was for the UN legal system?"

Not all UN member nations recognize the authority of the ICC - only 123 signed.  USA is one of the non-signers.  However, all 198 nations that signed the NPT (by signing) declared their willingness to comply by the treaty's rules of adjudication and punishment.  Absence more signatures or withdrawals, ICC would be able to handle situations with only 62% of the NPT nations.

NPT is the Treaty with the most signatories, so, it would be mathematically impossible to find "another UN authority" that covers every NPT nations (except of course the General Assembly which is everyone in the UN, and probably what most people consider as the UN).

re: "If the USA is going to use a really rubbery link in that Huawei has Businesses in the USA and another corporate entity exported 'product' (not necessarily of USA origin or even exported from the USA) so your 'company' is guilty of breaking USA sanctions on imports to Iran banning export of anything to Iran. This is so thin it will break."

I agree with you.  That is why I said earlier I hope the law she allegedly broke trace itself back to the NPT (which implies it trace back to a UN sanction).  That is the most solid, most agreed-to, least complication and would not add as much international tension.
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod