[giwook]

So were these founders found violating a child support order?I'm still unclear on what crime they actually committed and what they're being investigated for.

Is it possible that they are merely pawns in a political dispute between two rival countries?

It's one thing to block an acquisition because you don't want your rival to gain an advantage, an action which is not limited to the CCP.

It's another thing to detain an individual when no crime was committed.

[mothballed]

"Missing" (but quite often only due to a clerical misreporting) a payment isn't facially criminal and isn't even established as "violation" without a contempt hearing where you can argue why you didn't actually violate it. So the passport denial is even looser than that.

I'm just pointing out the bar isn't much different except dressed up in a think of the children meme. I'm not justifying either one.

[giwook]

Understood. I'd note that the difference is that with a missed payment, you can simply make that payment (which can be a relatively small one as you noted) and you're free and clear.

With these Chinese founders, I'm not sure it's quite so simple.