Original title: The Meng Wanzhou case enters the final court, the offensive and defensive judge questions the prosecution statement
China News Agency, Toronto, August 17 (Reporter Yu Ruidong) The final court trial before the first extradition verdict of Meng Wanzhou’s extradition case has entered the final week of court offense and defense. Meng Wanzhou’s defense attorney team focused on responding to the prosecution’s claims around the issue of the adequacy of US evidence.
This round of hearings began on August 4 in the High Court of British Columbia, Canada in Vancouver, and is expected to last until the 20th. After completing the court debate on the “procedural abuse” and judicial remedies claimed by the defense, the court has entered the final link, that is, the trial in the detention pending trial stage before being handed over.
Regarding the charges of “fraud” made by the US against Meng, the defense lawyer continued to make statements in court on the 16th, questioning his causality. The defense believes that Meng Wanzhou’s presentation slide (PPT) statement to HSBC bankers in Hong Kong in 2013 did not cause HSBC to suffer any economic losses or risks. HSBC knows that Huawei and Skycom have operations in Iran, but still chooses US dollars for liquidation. The risk is caused by itself. Meng’s statement has no causal relationship with HSBC’s choice of US dollar liquidation. There is no evidence that Meng had criminal intent and caused the potential consequences for HSBC.
The defense also believes that there is insufficient evidence in the U.S. case records to prove that HSBC witnesses provided the bank’s risk committee with complete key information about the PPT. Therefore, there is no causal relationship between the decision made by the risk committee and Meng’s PPT statement.
In the court hearings over the past few days, the trial judge questioned some of the prosecution’s statements. For example, the prosecution claimed that Meng Wanzhou’s confirmation that Xingtong was operating in compliance in Iran was a deception to HSBC; but the case record file also stated that Meng said that Huawei did not control Xingtong. The judge questioned: If Huawei does not control Xingtong, how can HSBC believe that Xingtong is operating in compliance with Meng’s statement and make business decisions accordingly?
The judge also raised a question: Should it be Meng Wanzhou himself who needs to remind HSBC of the risks involved in the US dollar liquidation? As an international bank, HSBC only relies on Meng Yiren’s words to make business judgments and decisions. Is this assumption reasonable?
The prosecution lawyer believed that what Meng passed to HSBC was “no risk” information, but he did not inform the bank of the risk.
After this round of trial is over, the prosecution and defense will wait for the judge to decide whether to extradite Meng Wanzhou to the United States. It is expected that the judge will make a judgment at an elective date. (Finish)
.