[roenxi]

That is what the US wants the core of the issue to be. The actual core of the issue isn't automatically set because the US has a preference. It seems completely reasonable that the Chinese would see a different core issue related to the US throwing their weight around.

This isn't a case that is being put through the Chinese court system. That suggests that the Chinese government doesn't see a problem with Huawei's actions. The US banks getting to have a legal say beyond that is a very questionable position given that they presumably knew who they were lending money to. The fact that under US law nothing is out of the ordinary is cool and all, but Meng Whanzhou isn't meant to be subject to US law. She's a Chinese businesswoman running a Chinese business from China.

Call me crazy, but she should be subject to Chinese law. And I can easily see why Chinese people might think that.

[atr_gz]

That doesn’t make sense to me. Of course if you do business with the US you are subject to US law. And if you travel to somewhere with an extradition treaty with the US, well, it shouldn’t be hard to guess what will happen. If I defrauded a Chinese bank I would expect to be arrested if I traveled somewhere with extradition to China.

What do you mean about the US banks having a legal say? The government is the one doing the prosecuting.

And if they were lied to, then how would they know that their money would be used to violate sanctions? Are you saying that they should have known that Huawei was lying, therefore it’s their own fault? Maybe that’s the case, but it doesn’t have any bearing on whether a crime was committed.

Edit: And that doesn’t change the fact that your original comment was highly misleading. I’m sure you can come up with some argument against the US position, but you should have done that in the first place instead of posting a strawman.

[roenxi]

> If I defrauded a Chinese bank I would expect to be arrested if I traveled somewhere with extradition to China.

Yes, but if the charge was that you were engaged in trade with Taiwan (or recognising Taiwan as an independent state) that would be equally outrageous.

> What do you mean about the US banks having a legal say? The government is the one doing the prosecuting.

I must have misunderstood what you said. I thought the banks in the US being fined was relevant.

> Are you saying that they should have known that Huawei was lying, therefore it’s their own fault?

Pretty much. Joys of capitalism. If this sort of thing is legal in the place where Huawei is sourcing their management from then they should have expected it. If somebody enters into an unenforceable contract and the other party starts laughing and ignoring it, that is on the parties involved.

> Maybe that’s the case, but it doesn’t have any bearing on whether a crime was committed.

It totally does have a bearing. America doesn't get to decide what a crime is for Chinese companies. The US can choose to hinder business between US companies and Chinese companies, can choose to restrict Chinese corporate activity on US soil and can negotiate for whatever they like. But grabbing people on a connecting flight as the opening play is going to stir up the nationalists for good reasons.

> Edit: And that doesn’t change the fact that your original comment was highly misleading. I’m sure you can come up with some argument against the US position, but you should have done that in the first place instead of posting a strawman.

US law is not some natural law of the world, and a US judge making a ruling is something that only US citizens should have to knuckle under and accept. If someone from China gets unhappy that suddenly their business leaders are being messed with on the orders of a US judge then it is totally understandable.

[threatofrain]

If trading with Taiwan were illegal in China and I wanted to do business in China of course I wouldn’t do both and set foot in China. That’s the reality with working with any country, including city state Singapore. I also wouldn’t expect any of the same luxuries that the western legal systems might provide.

But the CFO was arrested for financial fraud, and I would also be expected to be arrested if I engaged in financial lying with China, whether I was in China at the time of lying or not.

[atr_gz]

Again, she wasn’t charged with trading with Iran. Since you can’t seem to understand that simple point, I don’t see this conversation as productive any longer.