Skip to main content
Access every election story that matters
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week for 24 weeks
Access every election story that matters
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

Meng Wanzhou, chief financial officer of Huawei, leaves her home to attend her extradition hearing at B.C. Supreme Court, in Vancouver on March 31, 2021.

DARRYL DYCK/The Canadian Press

A lawyer for Meng Wanzhou says payments between a Huawei affiliate and an HSBC client that were cleared in American dollars do not give the United States jurisdiction to charge the executive.

American authorities are seeking the extradition of the Huawei chief financial officer on fraud charges linked to a 2013 meeting in which they allege she lied to the bank about a company affiliated with hers.

The company, Skycom, was doing business in Iran, which authorities allege put HSBC at risk of violating American sanctions, and they also point to payments that were cleared through the United States.

Story continues below advertisement

However, defence lawyer Gib van Ert told a British Columbia Supreme Court judge on Wednesday that the practice of “dollar clearing” is not sufficient under international law to allow the U.S. to charge Meng.

He said Meng is a Chinese national, HSBC is an English-Chinese bank, their meeting happened in Hong Kong, and the payments that were cleared through the American system were still foreign.

The lawyer read from expert reports that concluded the sheer volume of dollar clearing through the United States every day means the country cannot assert jurisdiction over Meng on that basis.

The court has heard that more than US$4.5-trillion is cleared through the American system daily and the transactions in question amount to just over US$2-million over a 13-month period.

He also said Meng’s alleged conduct did not cause the U.S. dollar clearing. HSBC decided to use its American subsidiary to clear the payments, which had nothing to do with Huawei, van Ert said.

“That can’t possibly be a basis for the requesting state’s claim to regulate Ms. Meng’s conduct and to have her extradited to the U.S.,” he said.

“Why would the United States have any greater claim to regulate Ms. Meng’s conduct in those circumstances than any other state in the world? Aside, of course, from China.”

Story continues below advertisement

The Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of the United States, has argued that Meng’s alleged misrepresentations to HSBC put the bank at risk of violating a deferred prosecution agreement for previously breaching sanctions against Iran.

But van Ert told Associate Chief Justice Heather Holmes that this risk does not give rise to American criminal law jurisdiction.

“To find otherwise, milady would be to allow the United States to take jurisdiction over people and events anywhere in the world so long as it has criminalized the conduct,” he told the judge.

He argued that if HSBC’s American subsidiary broke the law in the United States, then the country could prosecute the bank, which in turn could pursue Huawei in civil court for any losses it suffered.

Meng and Huawei have denied the allegations.

William Smart, another lawyer for Meng, said there is a connection between maintaining the rule of law, the integrity of the court’s process and public confidence in the administration of justice.

Story continues below advertisement

“We submit that the requesting state is using the process of this court in violation of customary international law and if Canada accedes to the committal, it will become effectively a party to that violation,” he said.

“This conduct is an affront to the rule of law and amounts to an abuse of this court’s process.”

The case is exceptional in that the abuse of the court’s process is the very request itself, which violates international law because the alleged crime has no “genuine or substantial connection” to the U.S., he said.

“The respect for the rule of law, as you know, is the bedrock of any democracy,” Smart added.

“In our justice system, no one is above the law, not the head of government, not the head of law enforcement and not a foreign government seeking Canada’s assistance.”

Meng was arrested while passing through Vancouver’s airport in December 2018 and is out on bail, living in one of her two multimillion-dollar homes in the city with her husband and children.

Story continues below advertisement

Her lawyers are arguing that the extradition case should be tossed because of an abuse of process.

Lawyers for the Attorney-General of Canada are expected to respond to their arguments about the alleged international-law breaches on Thursday.

The final phase of the B.C. Supreme Court case, an extradition hearing, is to begin in late April.

Our Morning Update and Evening Update newsletters are written by Globe editors, giving you a concise summary of the day’s most important headlines. Sign up today.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies