The Extradition of Meng Wanzhou
The Ideals of Common Sense and “The Rule of Law”
On a typical rainy day during the winter months in Vancouver the defence and Crown presented their final submissions to Supreme court Associate Chief Justice, Heather Holmes. The defence’s summation focused on attempting to undermind the very essence of the case for extradition by using a complex set of precedents that focused on reputational risk to HSBC as it relates to supposed fraud committed by the Huawei CFO to skirt the US sanctions dating back to 2010.
Indeed their sophisticated defence rested on the notion of "double criminality.”
Concluding the first phase of Meng’s high-stakes extradition case after four days of hearings in Vancouver, lawyer Scott Fenton told Madam Justice Heather Holmes in the British Columbia Supreme Court that “there must be actual risk posed to the economic interests of the victim” in a fraud case – an argument referring to the alleged lies Meng told HSBC about Huawei’s business in Iran.
This week’s first phase of Meng’s extradition he.arings, which began on Monday more than 13 months after her arrest at Vancouver’s international airport, have been devoted to whether her case passes the test of “double criminality” – the requirement that an extraditable suspect be accused of something that would have been a crime in Canada had it occurred there.
He went on to say " A case focused on the intent; The fraud was actually due to reputational risk based on what I would call, the fig leaf of reputational risk based on common sense in the absence of any evidentiary foundation. Justice Fleming was told one thing in the request for Miss Meng to rest in extradition. The court is being told another, and this is FRAUD. The court is being embarrassed here and therefore, there was no fraud here," as he closed his complex submission on the double criminality defence.
Prior to the arrest, the US government delivered a lengthy fact-based submission to the Canadian government for the extradition order. Officials scrambled in Ottawa to decide how they would act as Meng was using Vancouver as a stopover on her way to another foreign land. The ensuing arrest and diplomatic uproar with China has seen China taking unprecedented action against Canada in economic retaliation and by detaining Canadian diplomats Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig by holding and then charging them with espionage against China. Nations have come to the defence of Canada, but Canada/China relations are at a low. With our government trying every conceivable diplomatic intervention, an opportunity to change that course happened late last year. China was desperate for pork to feed its people due to the swine flu epidemic. Our newly minted ambassador, Dominic Barton, apparently buckled to the pork lobby and China by not securing any progress on the release of the two Michaels. It was a lost opportunity and once China ramps up production, they will cut Canada off again.
Meanwhile, the United States Government respectfully contends that Huawei CFO, Meng Wanzhou had indeed committed fraud to circumvent US sanctions against Iran dating back to the beginning of the last decade and should stand trial in New York for her crimes. The Americans are on terra firma, and Trudeau did take the correct action in detaining Meng. But some Canadians are mad that our government bowed to US pressure. They wrongly believe this is a case about President Donald Trump and his policies to punish China while trying to hammer out a trade deal announced in late December. Over the past year, our good friends from China's United Front Works have effectively used their global propaganda machine and diplomatic (influence) intervention to muddy the public discourse here in Canada and around the world. Former politicians like Chretien, Manley and Chretien’s former Chief of Staff Goldenberg suggested a spy swap and that the Rule of Law and Americans be dammed. They even resorted to hiring fake protestors on the first day of the trial to demonstrate strong public support in Canada for China's position to let her go. No, this case means a lot more to Canada and the world. It is a seminal case that indeed speaks to our western secular World Order. It speaks to respecting the "Rule of Law" as it applies to international relations, fair trade practices and global sanctions against a terrorist state(Iran) as it has existed for the better part of forty years. Meng is guilty as charged no matter how sophisticated the defence of double criminality is as it relates to a case for extradition. They lied to the bank when setting up the corporation and they sought to profit through this shell company by selling equipment and technology to Iran against global sanctions. That is the essence of FRAUD.
The complex arguments of the defence seemed to those in attendance to be spurious and indeed direct challenges to our Charter and our obligations to extradite Meng based on "Canadian precedents and international sanctions agreed to by all nations back in 2010. They are asking the Supreme court to believe that the CFO of China's state surveillance apparatus Huewai, was engaged in fraud to circumvent sanctions of the international rule of law. But because Canada had removed the sanctions in 2016 as part of the Iran deal, "it was no longer bound to honour the extradition request in 2018." Hence we as a nation built on the rule of law are not bound to extradite Meng to be tried justly and equitably for her supposed crimes against the United States and world sanctions for selling equipment through a third party corporation controlled by Huawei.
Ah, but just when you think all is lost, thank goodness for the ideals of Common Sense. Frater, the Crown prosecutor, deftly countered the defence submissions effectively and with some good humour from time to time. Frater stressed it was an unusual case before getting to his persuasive arguments that were heard by all those in attendance.
"....this interim idea that Canada might become a safe haven for criminal acts. But to interpret the case law in any other way would create a situation where a person could carry out criminal activity in one country with the knowledge that a safe haven exists where the conduct has not yet been criminalized. I respectfully submit that this submission, in our case, is the opposite and is not a safe haven. They countered the defence argument that Canada had stopped sanctions in 2016 and, therefore, if Canadian law of the requested state does not find the conduct criminal at the time of the request, it legitimately refuses extradition. In short, if Canadian law does not create a legal risk of deprivation in this case and we say it does not, then double criminality does not exist, and that is the essence of our submission. "
So if like most, you find this idea that there was criminal behaviour, but it rises to a state of double criminality. Therefore she should not be extradited for crimes she admits to because Canada had no such law on our books as it relates to US sanctions…….. Are you confused yet again? We can all empathize with Justice Holmes that it is indeed a complex decision that she has in front of her.
But I think Madame Justice could well put all of these complex defences aside. By simply listening closely to the Crown's final words on the case against Meng Wanzhou. Sometimes in a business of words(Law) and complex interpretations of the intent of lawmakers and legislators, it all boils down to the following; "This is the kind of case that tests our system. It is unique because of sanctions law. It is not the traditional law that extradition law is fused with..... but the general law that is common to nations should be applied, and it is unique because our standards have changed towards this very issue. It is not so much a matter of standing here and saying we demand justice but rather, Right. Right needs to be done as Right is a more elusive concept but rooted in both statutory law and the core of the rule of law.”
Court adjourned.
