孟晚舟案「司法补救」审理结束，全部审理最早 8 月 19 日结束，还有哪些信息值得关注？ 第1页

讲真孟晚舟确实涉嫌违反的是美帝法律，对伊朗出口笔记本电脑这件事基本上是洗不掉的。

别的不说，你看哪个在华为干过的敢跳出来说华为在伊朗没业务？制裁事件后，整个中国社会对于华为产品的自主零部件比例有了新的认识，你说华为绕得开美帝零部件和美帝技术，现在是不会有人再信了…

上面这种话，放今天是再没有人会信了…

有争议的只是美帝为了引渡提出的欺诈银行这个罪名。因为对伊朗出口笔记本电脑并不违反加拿大法律不能引渡，但欺诈银行同样违反加拿大法律就可以引渡。

现在法庭辩论的焦点，就是现有证据能不能证明华为通过欺骗的方式从银行进行了对伊朗出口业务的金融行为。

无论在美帝还是加拿大，包括我国，这都是重罪…

按照美加那种漫长的司法审查制度，只要请得起大律师，可以把案件拖的很久很久，孟晚舟以及华为公司当然出的起这个钱…所以官司才打了两年多。

类似的案例参照251，我国法律允许的最长羁押期限。孟好歹是在自己家里，251的受害者可是在看守所…虽然事实证明他才真是无辜的。

这不是长臂管辖，而是你当初进口美帝敏感产品的时候都会签承诺书，你违反了，那么被美帝司法机构通过各种渠道和方式抓那是活该。你说华为不知道么？华为知道不知道我不清楚，不过作为同行，中兴是很清楚的，所以把案例和风险都写进了公司内部文件：

你说华为不知道这样操作的风险？打死我都不信…

至于孟为什么会被抓，这同样要归功于中兴内部的文件竟然会拿华为的操作当例子，然后中兴被cia一锅端，连带着华为的操作也就都暴露在美帝眼皮子底下了：

图中红圈F7指代的就是华为，Hua Wei = H.W= Husband and Wife =夫妻=F7，懂了？
另外2010年收购3leaf这条，也已经算是明摆着告诉你F7是谁了:

至于华为是不是真的欺诈银行，我不认为国内这些沸腾网友有能力去辨别。毕竟国内所有的报道都在强调非法扣押，却绝口不提美加检方的证据有哪些瑕疵…

说句不好听的，你替人喊冤，尚且还要拿出点有说服力的证据来，比如死者复活（佘祥林案），真凶自白（呼格吉勒图案，存疑），出现关键性证据（于英生案）之类，反复强调美加非法扣押，但除了打压华为就是打压中国这种政治话术之外却说不出合理的证据和理由来，这真的很苍白…

我本人也无意科普庭审内容，翻墙违法，违法的事不能公开干，所以让子弹继续飞一会吧。反正马上出结果了，一旦法院裁定下来，很多东西再怎么藏也藏不住了…

最后再提醒下大家，对伊制裁不仅仅基于美帝国内法，联合国也是有措施的，而且我国官方是投了赞成票的：

至于汇丰出卖华为的说法，我一直是嗤之以鼻的：国内的银行除了昆仑银行这种不在美帝开业务，专门搞对五大被制裁国家结算业务的银行外，在其它所有银行你敢对伊用美元结算试试？分分钟把你叫去配合调查…

我之前供职的国企就出现过因为人员离职变动，导致对伊业务发货后750万美元原路退回的窘境，而且企业外汇收支管理等级还由A降到B…

国内的银行尚且如此，你说汇丰出卖华为？

也就是你找的不是国内银行吧…

爱国是应该的，但把共情资本家当成是爱国，

不切实际的把救国救民的希望寄托到资本家身上，

好像离了资本家国家民族就要完蛋一样，

这种想法既天真，又可笑，我看还是省省吧…

毕竟民智已开，中国人民不那么好忽悠了~

真理只在大炮射程之内。你没办法在昂撒人的海岸线上架起几门大炮，你就别想着和他们讲理。从加拿大州地方法院移送联邦法院，这才上半集呢，接下去才是正戏，你和一个省长搞外交努力肯定没用啊，外交是国对国的事。。

我前两天看到一则新闻：

Judge in Meng Wanzhou’s extradition case says U.S. allegation is unclear

A B.C. Supreme Court judge who must decide whether Meng Wanzhou can be extradited to New York to face a fraud charge says she doesn’t understand the U.S. allegation against the Chinese executive.

The revelation came more than a year and a half after the extradition hearing started, and on the first day of its evidence phase – the all-important segment in which the Attorney-General of Canada, representing the U.S. Department of Justice, presents the case against Ms. Meng.

Before Robert Frater, lawyer for the Attorney-General, could begin to lay out the evidence, Associate Chief Justice Heather Holmes of the B.C. Supreme Court questioned whether the U.S. had explained the essence of the crime it alleged Ms. Meng had committed – and in particular, its connection to sanctions against Iran.

“I’ve had great difficulty understanding,” she said. The judge – a former prosecutor specializing in corporate crime – went on to pose questions about how the United States set out the allegations in the record of the case (ROC) it supplied to Canadian authorities.

The extradition request has deeply angered China. Days after Ms. Meng’s arrest on Dec. 1, 2018, it arrested and detained two Canadians, Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig, and has held them for nearly 1,000 days. (Ms. Meng is free on bail.) Mr. Spavor was found guilty this week of spying and sentenced to 11 years in prison. The death penalty was upheld for another Canadian, Robert Schellenberg, for drug trafficking. China says the charge against Ms. Meng, the chief financial officer of the telecom Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., is politically motivated.

Ms. Meng is charged with fraud for allegedly misrepresenting to HSBC, in a PowerPoint presentation in Hong Kong in 2013, Huawei’s links to Skycom Tech Co. Ltd., another technology company. The U.S. alleges her misrepresentations exposed HSBC to the risk that it would be punished, criminally or civilly, for violating U.S. sanctions on Iran in dealings with Skycom and Huawei.

Judges in extradition hearings are allowed only a limited weighing of the evidence. The government needs only to make the case that, if the crime were alleged to have happened in Canada, the evidence was sufficient to send it to trial. While it’s a low bar, and most extradition cases involving the U.S. succeed, former chief justice Beverley McLachlin of the Supreme Court of Canada once cautioned: “The judge must act as a judge, not a rubber stamp.”

Ms. Meng is charged with fraud for allegedly misrepresenting to HSBC, in a PowerPoint presentation in Hong Kong in 2013, Huawei’s links to Skycom Tech Co. Ltd., another technology company.

DARRYL DYCK/THE CANADIAN PRESS

Associate Chief Justice Holmes made it clear she had no intention of being a rubber stamp.

“What I don’t understand,” she told Mr. Frater, “is whether the simple fact of dealing with government in Iran would be viewed as offside sanctions.”

“No,” Mr. Frater replied. “It is clear there is good Iran business and bad Iran business.”

“Can you show me that in the ROCs?” (The ROCs are the documents that lay out the evidence and explain the alleged crime.)

Mr. Frater acknowledged: “There isn’t a clear statement of ‘here’s what’s on one side of the line’ and ‘here’s what’s on the other.’”

He said there was a “reasonable inference” that some Iranian business was legal, from the fact that Ms. Meng was candid about doing business in Iran.

“She admits that they’re doing business in Iran. She admits they work … with Skycom. No point in making that admission if all activity in Iran was proscribed,” Mr. Frater said.

“I have been troubled by this issue,” the judge said. “What I’m trying to get at is how does the ROC make all of that clear? That certain things engage sanctions and other things don’t. Because it’s only with that background that one can assess what’s said in the PowerPoint as to whether it was deceptive.”

Mr. Frater said he would get back to her on the point after the lunch break. When they reconvened, he said Huawei was certainly doing permissible business in Iran – but transactions in U.S. dollars put through in the United States were prohibited.

The judge also asked about possible contradictions in Mr. Frater’s summarizing of the case against Ms. Meng: that she told HSBC there was no risk of sanctions violations from Huawei or Skycom, while failing to disclose the true relationship between the two companies.

Associate Chief Justice Holmes said: “As I understand your theory ... the bank had nothing to worry about as far as sanctions violations went because Ms. Meng or Huawei could assure the bank that Skycom was in compliance. Doesn’t that run counter to the theory ... that she falsely misrepresented that Huawei didn’t control Skycom? In other words, how would she be able to give that assurance ... in a way that would be satisfactory and convincing to the bank unless Huawei was in full control of Skycom?”

Mr. Frater said he didn’t see the inconsistency.

The judge then asked whether it was reasonable to suppose that a large bank with risk committees would rely on one individual’s assurance about companies not under its control.

The meeting between Ms. Meng and HSBC was arranged after Reuters published articles suggesting Skycom, which it said had “close ties” with Huawei, was violating sanctions. Associate Chief Justice Holmes expressed skepticism several times that the bank was truly put at risk by Ms. Meng’s presentation after it received a clear warning of sanctions violations in the Reuters reports. For fraud to have occurred, HSBC would have had to face a risk from the misrepresentations.

The evidence phase, which wraps up the hearing, continues on Thursday, and is expected to last until the middle of next week.

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.

假如这篇文章不是烟雾弹，假如这篇文章的记者确实阐述了法官的想法，黑体字那里展示的法官态度对孟晚舟是非常有利的。

总结来说就是，法官认为美国的制裁非常的不明确，这个犯罪判定的空间非常模糊。

但是从最近中国这边判了一个加拿大间谍罪十一年的刑期，似乎暗示着中国和加拿大方面的气氛越来越僵，可能代表孟晚舟案件的情况非常不利。

所以一时还真不好说会是什么样的情况。当然加拿大的就算在中国被判了刑，如果孟晚舟那边释放了，中国这边肯定会把加拿大人遣返，加拿大那边接收到了自己国民，肯定会无罪释放，这等于两边都没受什么损伤，所以判刑也未必代表孟晚舟现在这个案子就一定是向不好的局面发展。

从加拿大那边释放出来的新闻看，孟晚舟案件未必没救，从中国释放出来的新闻看，似乎出现了问题，所以再等等看吧，这是两个国家政治的角力。

随意一瞄，这个答案真的撕裂我的三观。。。

首先是说钱是从华为996工程师剥削来的，但凡知道一点华为的分红制度也说不出这样的话。

其次是不穿国货，如果真要按他这逻辑，从出行到家具一定是中国货才算爱国的话，我估计中国99%的老百姓都不算爱国的，我最喜欢的游戏是魔兽世界，我是不是也不爱国？

我不知道孟晚舟是不是真心爱国，但这种答案写出来真的是一言难尽

---

  tuan-jie-xin-cun-28hao 网友的相关建议: 
      

这是一起政治事件。

在中国的军政实力能保护中国的经济利益之前是必然会发生的。

除了表现为孟晚舟事件之外，还有我们在南美非洲中东中亚等地的投资安全，还有前不久的台湾驻东欧某国办事处事件，本质是一样的。

但我们不能因此而退回国内

我们积极对外交流并发展可能会出此类事情，但我们闭关锁国的话敌人却是可能会上门的。

孟晚舟如果被引渡到美国，那就是我们不得不付出的代价

等我们跨过某个坎就全球都是友好国家了，我只希望我们的小本本记好

---

  liquangaoyang 网友的相关建议: 
      

个人判断，孟女士能被加拿大当局释放的可能性很小。但是实际引渡也不会那么快。

这种牌就和台湾问题一样，对美国来说捏在手里最有价值，打出去了价值就打折扣了。

---

  yuan-lei-81-69 网友的相关建议: 
      

孟有可能此生再也回不来中国，毕竟现在中美都有开战的迹象。

还有，比美国更恶心的，当属某些中国人，他们打着讨伐资本家的名义讨伐华为，比如下面这人。

我寻思着，华为即便犯了法，也该由中国的法律惩处吧，哪里轮得到美国长臂管辖。你以为这人是真的站在广大人民群众这一边吗？

不是，这人只是想华为早点关门，借讨伐资本家的名义攻击污蔑华为，进而洗白美国。如果不信，你们去看看这人的回答，凡是涉及华为的，无一不是讽刺、挖苦、嘲笑、诋毁和抹黑。

看似正义凌然、为民请命，内心却十分阴毒险恶，自私自利。此外，又有好多匿名的反思怪冒出来了，他们的逻辑是～华为如果没做错，美国怎么会关押孟呢。

拜登一上台，各种牛鬼蛇神统统又回来了。

---