[sudosysgen]

The insane idea is that US criminal law applies worldwide, not only on US soil.

Banks do no criminally charge people, but they can go after the civil damages to recuperate their incurred costs due to the fraud and have huge power to motivate prosecutors to press charges. In some foreign countries, bank can actually go after people criminally. If the foreign country in which the bank operates will not punish the fraudster then they can pull out of that country.

[JumpCrisscross]

> The insane idea is that US criminal law applies worldwide

If a man in India scams a Russian or German, that should be outside the realm of Russian or German law? And then if that man travels to Russia or Germany, Russia or Germany should not be allowed to arrest him, because he was in India when the crime was committed?

It takes mental gymnastics to take a series of material lies made to a bank to obtain U.S. dollar financing for the violation of U.S. sanctions in respect of American products, and brand it as extraterritoriality. The U.S. absolutely has extraterritoriality problems. This isn't one of those.

[billfruit]

If an Indian company defrauds a Russian bank, could they be in trouble in Germany, because the transaction was done in British pounds? Seems quite a tenuous stretch.

[sudosysgen]

HSBC is neither Russian nor German, even though they do business with the Russian and German economy and government.

[JumpCrisscross]

> HSBC is neither Russian nor German

And Meng isn’t Indian. It’s an analogy.

[sudosysgen]

Meng is Chinese, the analogy works perfectly. HSBC is an entity from a third-party country.

[JumpCrisscross]

> the analogy works perfectly

Correct, which is why the jurisdiction and extradition make sense.

Glad we agree.

[guug]

So you're saying that china would be completely within its rights to extradite, prosecute, and punish a US citizen who made fun of their leader on US soil if that citizen ever sets foot in a jurisdiction that has an extradition treaty with china?

[washitallaway]

That is not atypical - countries can and should protect their interests and the interests of their citizens (see GDPR).

Huawei wanted to play both sides, and by doing so, opened themselves up to these charges. They were under no obligation to use the US financial infrastructure, and only through its use did they become covered by its laws.

[sudosysgen]

This isn't about Huawei though. If they sue a company for that that's something that I would wholeheartedly support, and eventually Huawei can entirely stop operating in the US if they disagree.

This is about an individual being charged and extradited to the US that is not a US citizen for a crime that happened between non-US actors outside of the US.

[neokrish]

IANAL but bring a lot of knowledge from a corporate structure perspective. A company is nothing but a contract that is agreed upon between a group of people. While there is a distinction between airing a company vs an individual (concept of limited liability), this isn’t the case when we are talking about fraud. Fraud exposes the board and management for charges. In this case, she was on the board and she is also the CFO. It is fair game that she is held responsible for fraud. Now who should hold her responsible for it is another question. Does US have the right to do so? I personally think so. What value would the US financial fabric have if a company HQ’d in an extra territorial jurisdiction is able to conduct fraud elsewhere, using banks that are global? How would your idea that US cannot charge the CFO extrapolate is a company is HQ’d in Cayman Islands?

[sudosysgen]

It is quite simple how it should work and indeed how it works for literally all countries except the US.

I have no issue with the CFO of the company being held criminally accountable for fraud if it is the case. However, this is not the purview of the US. It was fraud against a non-US entity outside of US jurisdiction by a non-US citizen. It should thus not be tried under US law. If the US is unhappy that they cannot apply their law abroad they are free to pull out of global trade.

If it is obvious that the Cayman Islands turn a blind eye to fraud and do not prosecute fraudsters, the banks are free to stop doing business in the Cayman Islands in order to avoid having to pay for damages out of their own pockets. Otherwise, the federal government can also impose restrictions on the Cayman Island's access to the US banking system.

This is a very simple truth - the US Financial system is built to enforce economic violence against various innocent entities. I have absolutely no sympathy towards maintaining it and maintaining its power over the world without the US having to be accountable to the consequences of too strict restrictions, as happens under the system as it is currently, that gives the US Government fantastic and unjustified privilege and power.

[haecceity]

This thread is so interesting. I have no idea how laws work. Most people in this thread have no idea either but they're convinced Huawei or their CFO is justly condemned. It's even funnier that they can't even tell the difference between two!