Meng Wanzhous second hearing was fruitless and his husband did not qualify for guaranty.

category:Global click:483
 Meng Wanzhous second hearing was fruitless and his husband did not qualify for guaranty.


On Dec. 10, Vancouver BC Provincial High Court of Canada continued to weigh whether to allow Meng Wanzhou, Chief Financial Officer (CFO), to be released on bail during the extradition ruling. Meng Wanzhou himself attended, and his husband appeared at the auditorium.

(The picture is a sketch of the first hearing on Dec. 7. Source: Associated Press; Author: Jane Wolsak)

The hearing is still not clear, the Canadian court still did not make a final decision today, the hearing will continue on 11.

The focus of todays pre-hearing stage is whether high-tech means can ensure that suspects do not abscond from bail. The core question is whether Mengs husband can become his bail guarantor.

After the trial, Mr. Meng first introduced two defence witnesses to the judge: Scott Filer, chief executive of the bail monitoring service Lions Gate Risk Management (hereinafter referred to as LG), and Stephen Tan of Recovery Science Corporation (hereinafter referred to as RS). Huawei hopes that if released on bail, security companies and Steve Tang will work together to provide bail monitoring services for Meng Wanzhou.

Filer showed the judge a bail period monitoring plan developed by LG company for Meng Wanzhou, including information about the area where Meng can move automatically during bail, monitoring means and the composition of monitoring team. The plan shows that LG will use GPS chip tracking technology to update its location every minute. But it must be used where the cell phone towers can be launched. Therefore, Mengs activities will be limited to areas with mobile phone coverage in urban areas.

According to Steve Tang, RS has more than 500 bail surveillance experiences, and 114 bail surveillance services are currently being implemented. But he also told the judge that in the history of his bail surveillance service, a person under surveillance had escaped wearing a monitor.

Although the defense witnesses demonstrated the bail surveillance service plan, the Canadian prosecution lawyer said: Meng Wanzhou has no meaningful connection with Canada. Meng Wanzhou lives in China, and there is no extradition treaty between China and Canada. If she is released on bail, it means she will be at risk.

Subsequently, Canadian prosecution lawyers also stressed that Mengs Canadian permanent resident card expired nine years ago and the Canadian identity card of BC (British Columbia) expired 12 years ago. Meng spent only two to three weeks in Canada in a summer.

Whether there is a bail guarantor convinced by the judge is one of the keys to Mengs bail.

During the hearing, the defence had proposed that Ms. Mengs husband should take the role of guarantor, but the Canadian prosecution lawyer said that Ms. Mengs husband was not a Canadian citizen and did not have a permanent residence card. He stayed in Canada as a visa and his visa would expire in February 2019, which was not in line with Canadian practice. u3002

Before the end of this hearing, one of Mengs lawyers suggested that the court put forward permitted travelzone (a form of bail, i.e. delimiting the scope of activities), the prosecution lawyer suggested that it be changed to house rest (house arrest), house rest itself is also a form of imprisonment. Unlike bail, bail is free to travel, even on short trips, as long as the court does not issue a relevant injunction.

There are still doubts as to whether non-Canadian residents can be guarantors of bail. The judge said so at the end of todays hearing. According to Canadian judicial practice, it is an obvious exception for non-Canadian residents to become bail guarantors. This will be the focus of the third hearing.

According to Canadian judicial practice, the basic requirement for guarantors is local residents: Canadian citizens or permanent residents (Maple Leaf Card holders). In addition, the guarantors working record, family background and relationship with the guarantor are important factors for the court to consider whether to grant the guarantee.

The main responsibilities of the guarantor include three points: 1. Ensuring that the bail is present when the court needs it; 2. Ensuring that the bail is compliant with the bail terms; 3. Calling the police immediately when the bail violates any bail terms.

To persuade the judge to accept the guarantor, it is necessary for the defense lawyer to provide evidence to prove that the guarantor can undertake the three responsibilities mentioned above.

For the court, the guarantor needs a good credit record and has relatively close contact with the guarantor. This is an important guarantee for the guarantor to perform the above guaranty duties. If the bailed person does not have much contact with him or even a stranger to guarantee, the court is likely to refuse his request for guarantee.

On the other hand, the bail (property) submitted by the guarantor needs to be paid by the guarantor. Considering that the amount of bail may be very large, it is not easy to find local residents who have close contact with Ms. Meng and have relatively large assets and are willing to assume the responsibility of guarantor. Given Ms. Mengs limited time in Vancouver, finding the right guarantor is even more difficult.

From the hearing process, the defense has proposed that Ms. Mengs husband should assume the role of guarantor. Considering that Ms. Mengs husband is not a Canadian resident, this requirement is inconsistent with the practice of Canadian courts approving guarantors. It is more difficult for the courts to accept this requirement.

In addition, during todays bail hearing, the judge revealed that the Canadian government had not received a formal extradition request from the United States. The judge said that the United States of America had 60 days to submit a formal extradition request.

Proliferated security concerns

Whether Meng will be extradited to the United States has not been decided yet. The question of whether the use of high-tech equipment from Chinese companies will lead to security concerns has spread further.

On Dec. 10, the Japanese government issued new regulations on government procurement in order to prevent cyber attacks and ensure cyber security. According to media reports, Japans move is intended to cooperate with the United States, excluding Huawei and ZTE from the list of Japanese government procurement.

In addition, EU Vice President Ansip said that the EU had to worry about Chinese companies such as Huawei. The Chinese government may require technology companies to cooperate with intelligence agencies, such as by installing a mandatory back door to access encrypted data.

At the regular press conference of the Ministry of foreign affairs in December 10th, foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang responded on the same day, noting that the Japanese government had issued new regulations on government procurement, and China had already communicated with Japan through diplomatic channels. China will keep a close watch on the implementation of relevant Japanese regulations. Importantly, the normal business activities of Chinese enterprises in Japan can not be discriminated against.

Japanese Cabinet Chief Cabinet Secretary Kan Yiwei said in response to questions from reporters that the Japanese government introduced relevant regulations not to exclude specific enterprises and equipment for the purpose.

Lu Kang said that for some time, some people in some countries are always saying that HUAWEI may pose a threat to their national security. But so far, these people have never been able to put forward a convincing evidence to prove how HUAWEI affects their national security. This kind of guesswork is a very absurd way to set obstacles to the normal operation of enterprises. . In the current context of economic globalization, I believe that this is also not conducive to mutually beneficial cooperation among countries.

Actual data show that Huawei has cooperated in many countries around the world before. So far, Huawei has signed 5G commercial contracts with enterprises in more than twenty countries. Lu Kang claimed that no country has ever heard of any security problem because of cooperation with HUAWEI.

He reiterated that Chinas laws and regulations did not authorize any institution to force enterprises to install compulsory backdoors.

Security is a common reason for the United States to question Chinese companiesentry into the countrys market. Today, with the rapid development of science and technology and the high globalization of science and technology industry, design, manufacture, use, maintenance and guarantee are becoming more and more important. In the long industrial chain, every link needs the efforts of different countries and different manufacturers. How to balance technology and politics to test the wisdom of decision-makers in different countries? But it is not wise to use information security as game chips in the short run and in the long run.

US Long Arm Jurisdiction Is Questioned

With the development of the situation, more details about the detention of Meng Wanzhou by Canadian authorities have also flowed out. According to the information released by Peoples Daily on Dec. 10, the Canadian police have completely ignored the spirit of the law and made the choice of presumption of guilt, handcuffed and shackled the parties without trial and conviction. Unjustified treatment of a Chinese citizen as a felon violates his basic human rights and humiliates his human dignity.

A Chinese legal expert commented on Caijing that the current actions of the United States and Canada can find a legal basis, but whether such acts are in accordance with international law and whether it is reasonable to request the extradition of third-country citizens as terrorists are treated without any hard evidence, let alone the CFO of a super company. Doubt it.

He analyzed that if Meng Wanzhou cooperated with the investigation and if the result was no violation of the law, how to calculate compensation was a difficult problem. Generally speaking, the absence of a companys core personality may lead to a companys daily operation or even strategic frustration. Assuming that a government can initiate cross-border arrests at no cost or at a slight cost, the sense of order and security will disappear for enterprises.

After the hearing on December 11, Huawei issued a statement saying it would continue to pay attention to the bail hearing tomorrow. He said he would continue to believe that the legal systems of Canada and the United States would follow up with fair conclusions.

Source: Responsible Editor of Finance and Economics: Han Jiapeng_NN9841