- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 461 Hour
- Reading permission
sfphoto Post time: 2018-12-13 16:45
Those are circumstantial evidence. Huawei employees is not equal to Huawei corporation. They sho ...
They should prove that Huawei still owns and controls Skycom
They only need to prove the controlling part. Ownership on paper is irrelevant. It is a common tactic in majority of economic offenses to put a company in someone else's name but still control it, fully or partially.
I know setups like this in China too. For example, when teachers are banned from running their own companies, they put the company in spouse's or friend's name, but make all decisions themselves anyway. That too is about getting around sanctions, so to speak, with questionable means. Illegal even?
Huawei no longer owns Skycom, then Meng is telling the truth.
As I said, ownership is irrelevant.
"the banks have responsibilities toward that stock exchange" [...] stock market has nothing to do with the alleged fraud.
Feel free to check the regulatory requirements for companies that want to be listed in New York Stock Exchange.
Each subsidiary operates under the laws of the territories where they operate, not where the parent company is listed
Subsidiaries are not responsible for violations that occur in parent companies, but parent companies are responsible for violations that occur in their subdiaries. If parent companies are under legal obligations toward some US regulations (and they are, if they are traded in USA), then US can go after violations in the subsidiaries through those parent companies.
In similar vein, US can not go after Huawei's US entities, because those entities are not suspected of any violations. Going after them would not be about justice, but about revenge.
yet the Western media has already pronounced its verdict.
That's a load of crap - if anything, it is Chinese media applying Chinese standards that most suspects are automatically guilty. That's why Chinese are acting this way, even though the case is far from completed. You expect the guilty verdict, because that's how it would go in China.
If Huawei had nothing to gain from the alleged misrepresentation (of ownership interests in Skycom), then there is no criminal case.
In my opinion, the intent to gain something is beyond doubt. Huawei is a commercial enterprise, and it's (or Skycom's) operations in Iran or anywhere else are not humanitary aid, but business for profit. Everything that such company makes, can be expected to aim for profit.
The only question is therefore, did Meng misrepresent facts or not - did she really state that the two companies are separate, and was that true or false. That's what they should discuss in court, when they get to it.
Aim for economic gain is given regardless.