Hey, I'm no fan of Trump and the justification for reimposition of sanctions is also suspect, but the charge is that a Chinese firm sold US goods to Iran in spite of those sanctions. China was within there right to sell Chinese goods to Iran but not US goods. This isn't hard people.
It's bad enough the US makes it a personal liability crime for a foreign national to be part of a company breaking US sanctions ... for Canada to cooperate with that is elevating the value of US laws to ridiculous level, Trump is truly emperor of the western world I guess.
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.
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.
their like Biff in back to the future. What do you expect?
their like Biff in back to the future. What do you expect?You mean they always end up in bull's shit?
their like Biff in back to the future. What do you expect?You mean they always end up in bull's shit?"I.... hate manuuuure!"
And by the way, the arrested CFO owns two houses in Vancouver, Canada. Did not feel safe home in China?
And by the way, the arrested CFO owns two houses in Vancouver, Canada. Did not feel safe home in China?
What i read in a local newspaper it is not about Huawei but a supplier company which the chinese say is a separate entity, but the americans consider it the same Huawei, pointing it is managed and operated by same people, even at employee level. Do not know, fake news are everywhere so taking it with a grain of salt.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
QC tried to mess with Chinese government before, and it learned that being submissive is the only way to live in China, the hard way.
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: "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).
Thanks. Not surprising the USA hasn't signed this one along with all the others that give the UN some power to act.
Wonder when the USA will pay the UN the money they have owed for a few decades too but I am sure non compliance with a UN agreement isn't and issue in this case 'because reasons'
The 'arrears' are fairly minor by nation standards but it is a matter of politics why it doesn't get paid. Seems how you want to quote wikipedia use this link and scroll to the section on Arrears https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_United_Nations It goes to hypocrisy selective (self interested) adherence and demands of adherence by others of the UN decisions and mandates or agreements.
Perhaps read the entire page as it is mostly balanced fair commentary on the relationship between the USA and UN and not driven by 'fake news'