Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Canada arrests Huawei’s global chief financial officer in Vancouver

So I make a conclusion that you quoted.
As for alleged violation of ms.Meng rights then it is a separate matter. Even if her rights were violated then she could demand official apologies, material compensation but it is not an obstacle for extradition.
Send your agents round to answer some questions under caution, if it turns out that we want to keep them a bit longer for a trial then we’ll send our apologies
 
In my opinion all requirements (written in the Canadian law for extradition) in the case with ms.Meng are satisfied.
You may disagree with this opinion. So you may point to this or that specific requirement that is not satisfied. For me such an information would be very interesting.
You may agree with my opinion. But in this case why do you need any quote?
My source is in fact random one


So the basic requirement of Canadian extradition law is satisfied. Also I haven't heard that Meng's lawyers claimed that any other (maybe minor) requirements are not satisfied (correct me if I'm wrong).
So I make a conclusion that you quoted.
As for alleged violation of ms.Meng rights then it is a separate matter. Even if her rights were violated then she could demand official apologies, material compensation but it is not an obstacle for extradition.
You have asked me this question several times already, and I have outlined the steps to you in reply. Go back and look at our previous conversations on this topic. You don't have to go further back than the previous couple of pages, so don't come back with the excuse that there are too many posts to look through. You just have to look at your posts where you asked the question and my posts where I answered you.

As to whether or not Ms. Meng choses to use all the avenues of appeal that are open to her in order to avoid extradition is her choice and her right.
 
You have asked me this question several times already...
Frankly speaking I don't understand what my question do you mean. In my previous post I didn't ask you about anything. I myself tried to answer your question about a quote from reputable source.
To close the theme with questions, just regard all my previous ones as rhetorical questions - as a way, as a method to express my point of view. Now I outline it in a direct form.
In my opinion the line chosen by Canadian government in the Meng's case is illogical, voided clear objective and doubtful from point of view of international treaties signed by Canada. One and half year to resolve the double criminality question is disproportionally long time interval. I would like to recall The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights signed by many countries including Canada
Article 9
...
3. Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release.
In my opinion the time in the Meng's case is not reasonable at all. Especially taking into account that the details of alleged violation of US sanctions are not (and will not be) investigated in Canada.
As a result quite expectedly 2 Canadian citizens will remain in Chinese detention likely for years. By the way, China signed the Covenant but not ratified it yet. So 'reasonable time' argument is not applicable to China.
..., and I have outlined the steps to you in reply. Go back and look at our previous conversations on this topic. You don't have to go further back than the previous couple of pages, so don't come back with the excuse that there are too many posts to look through. You just have to look at your posts where you asked the question and my posts where I answered you.
You have described the current state of the case in details and added your indeed valuable comments that I much appreciate.
As to whether or not Ms. Meng choses to use all the avenues of appeal that are open to her in order to avoid extradition is her choice and her right.
Of course it is true. It is her right and her choice.
 
The court proceedings concerning Meng Wanzhou's extradition to the US have resumed this week, with the subject being addressed that of abuse of process by Canadian authorities.
Meng's defence team pushes for release of secret documents, alleges unlawful investigation

A significant point seems to be how the RCMP did not follow the instructions in the arrest warrant to arrest her "immediately", but instead stood and watched for several hours while Meng was interrogated and searched for evidence by border officials. This apparently was a ruse to get around the legal protections which a person under arrest would normally be accorded.
Lawyers for Meng Wanzhou pushed today for the release of documents they say could bolster their claim that FBI and Canadian authorities conspired in a "covert" criminal investigation against the Huawei executive and violated her constitutional rights.

In a virtual federal court hearing — part of Meng's ongoing extradition proceedings — defence counsel Scott Fenton argued the events of Dec. 1, 2018 were unlawful because border officials detained Meng and seized evidence three hours before she was formally arrested by the RCMP. That defied a judge's provisional arrest warrant that instructed officers to "immediately" arrest Meng, he said.

"She was immediately accosted by the CBSA while the RCMP officers who were tasked with her provisional arrest stood by with the warrant in their pocket and watched," Fenton said.

There is also a big question over why CSIS (Canadian security intelligence) were involved in what is allegedly a bank fraud case. This would not normally be something within their remit. Also, it is not within the remit of CBSA (border officials) to gather evidence on behalf of other parties.

There is an appearance that CSIS conspired directly with the American authorities to bypass normal legal protections, in order to use "national security" provisions to hide the degree to which they were working with the US in this.

At present the defence are trying to get access to various CSIS documents to determine the degree to which CSIS were involved with the US in planning this. CSIS are resisting on the grounds that doing so would damage Canada-China relations, and put Canadian lives at risk (presumably referring to Kovrig and Spavor).
The government has opposed the release of unredacted CSIS documents, insisting the disclosure of sensitive information could further damage Canada-China relations and put Canadian lives at risk

"Access" to unredacted documents does not necessarily mean giving them to the defence. This is not the first time a legal case has hinged around classified documents. There are provisions for having a neutral third party with security clearances examine the documents instead.

The crown's response to this has been to suggest that this aspect of the case should be handed over to the BC Supreme Court, rather than the federal court.
Federal government lawyer Robert Frater said today the abuse of process matter is one to be decided by the B.C. Supreme Court, not the federal court, but he flatly rejected the defence lawyers' claims.

That raises the interesting spectacle of the deportation hearing being put on hold while a whole new case is kicked off in another court, with potentially still more delays.

There is an 8 minute video in the linked news story which provides an interesting legal analysis from a BC immigration lawyer, who describes some of the very peculiar and unusual aspects of this case with respect to how it has been conducted from the government side. I would recommend watching it.
 
The case has been back in court again this week. The issue being address is abuse of process. The defence is focused on getting documents from the crown supporting their case, while the crown are trying to prevent this. The defence say that the record of the case being presented to the court is full of misrepresentations.

Meng Wanzhou's lawyers seek access to 37 key documents to challenge extradition
Meng Wanzhou's lawyers claim extradition case riddled with misrepresentations

Several relevant items are:

The US case rests largely on a PowerPoint presentation given by Meng to HSBC bankers. The defence says that the crown deleted key parts of the presentation from the version given to the judge and that the full version supported the defence's case.
Prosecutors claim assurances contained in Meng's PowerPoint presentation convinced the banker that HSBC wouldn't risk violating those same sanctions if the bank continued to provide financing to Huawei through the U.S. banking system.

HSBC was in a particularly vulnerable position at the time because the bank was bound by the terms of a deferred prosecution agreement with the U.S. because of previous violations.

The defence team's new evidence is intended to rebut the so-called "record of the case" that makes up the bedrock of the extradition request.

Meng's lawyers claim prosecutors omitted key parts of the PowerPoint in the version of the case they provided to Canadian authorities, and that those missing slides prove that Meng was upfront about Huawei's relationship with SkyCom.

"No banker would leave the meeting thinking that Huawei had distanced itself from SkyCom," the defence team claims.

"More important, a banker would have left the meeting knowing that Huawei and SkyCom were working together in Iran and that Huawei exercised control over SkyCom's compliance with trade and export control laws."

The defence want to introduce an affidavit from a banking expert that states that HSBC routinely does US dollar transactions in Hong Kong without going through the US banking system, and could have done so in the case of Huawei.
The other evidence the defence wants to introduce includes an affidavit from a banking expert who claims HSBC routinely conducts U.S. dollar transactions through Hong Kong without touching the American banking system — and could have done so with no risk in relation to Huawei.

Other affidavits will apparently show that the vice-president of HSBC was aware of the relationship between Huawei and SkyCom, contrary to US claims that only junior employees knew.
Meng's lawyers claim other affidavits will show that a HSBC vice-president was aware of the relationship between Huawei and SkyCom, despite the fact the U.S. record of the case says only junior employees knew that the telecommunications giant controlled SkyCom's bank accounts.

They also included an affidavit from John Bellinger, a former senior lawyer for a previous US president that the US have never before impose criminal or civil penalties on a third party who was deceived into violating sanctions. This apparently undermines the US case that HSBC would have faced prosecution, which in turn is the basis for claiming fraud in the case of Meng.
The new evidence includes an affidavit from John Bellinger, a former senior associate counsel to the George W. Bush White House who claims the U.S. government has never imposed criminal or civil sanctions on a financial institution for being deceived by a third party into violating economic sanctions.

"Any assertion that Ms. Meng would have put the bank in legal jeopardy … is not supported by past U.S. government practice," Bellinger writes.

The past few months have apparently been occupied with jousting over access to 93,000 documents identified as being relevant to the defence case. Court officials narrowed that down to 387 documents, and then further to 37.
The arguments follow months of back and forth between the Crown and defence over what started as a trove of 93,000 documents identified as relevant to defence inquiries.

A Crown lawyer told the court public servants spent hundreds of hours whittling that amount down to 387 documents, and with the help of a lawyer appointed to act as a kind of referee in the case, they have been able to focus on 37 documents up for discussion this week.

The judge now has to rule on further redactions and exclusions.
Holmes has to rule on redactions to some documents and on decisions to exclude about two dozens documents from public view entirely because of privileges attached to communications between lawyers and their clients, other legally protected communications and public interest.

One particular area of contention are access to emails which the defence believe show the RCMP sending the US FBI confidential information from customs officials' examination of her electronic devices. I understand this is central to the defence's case for abuse of process, in which customs procedures were abused to get information which could not be legally obtained by police without a court order, and how the police disregarded the instructions in the arrest warrant in order to do this.
Fenton said the Crown recently disclosed a detailed legal analysis connected to a request in February 2019, while still refusing to release a "flurry" of emails which occurred at the time of the first request in the days after Meng's arrest — when the defence believes the RCMP sent the FBI the information it was looking for.
 
Meng's lawyers have been denied access to crown documents outlining the planning and execution of her arrest. This documents were to be used in her abuse of process proceedings against the crown. This ruling is with respect to the small number of documents which were permitted to proceed to this stage. The overwhelming bulk of the original documents were already denied through administrative means before they reached the court.
Meng Wanzhou loses federal court battle for CSIS information
The judge said Meng's lawyers had argued that they were looking for information about the planning of the Huawei chief financial officer's arrest, interagency co-operation, the execution of the arrest and evidence gathering. But none of that was contained in the blacked-out portions of the documents CSIS provided.

"The information does not provide the 'missing pieces of the puzzle' that Meng seeks," Kane wrote.

"The redacted information does not respond to or illuminate the allegations of abuse of process and is not the type of information that counsel for Ms. Meng noted would be relevant."

And even if it had been relevant, the judge said, she wouldn't have been inclined to release it anyway.

"If any of the redacted information were marginally relevant — which it is not — the court would find that its disclosure would be injurious," Kane said.

One day of the four day hearing was public, and the remaining three days were behind closed doors.
One day of federal court arguments over the redactions was held in public and the rest of the week's hearings happened behind closed doors, with Meng's attorneys excluded along with the public.

The above mentioned documents were from CSIS (security intelligence). There are additional documents from CBSA (customs and immigration), the RCMP, and the Justice ministry which still have to be reviewed. It is possible that the information which Meng's lawyers are seeking is in these other documents.
The decision comes as Holmes is considering similar questions about details kept from public view in 37 more CBSA, RCMP and Department of Justice documents.

The next court appearance is in September.
 
As scheduled, the Meng extradition hearings have resumed this week. Not a lot has actually happened yet, and the following stories are mostly just a regurgitation of previous news. The second story does give some information about the RCMP officer who actually executed the arrest. There's not much of interest in it that I could see however.

RCMP and CBSA officers to face questions over Meng Wanzhou's arrest in extradition case
RCMP officer who arrested Meng Wanzhou says he knew case was 'high-profile'

I don't think that anything really dramatic is expected to happen this week.
 
There were more development at Meng's extradition hearings this week. I have collected the stories together here.
Meng Wanzhou's lawyers claim RCMP could have ensured Huawei exec was advised of rights

On Tuesday Meng's lawyers spent their time grilling Const. Winston Yep, who was in charge of Meng's arrest. Of particular concern was why Yep didn't arrest Meng "immediately", as the arrest warrant stated he was to do.

Yep replied that he viewed the instructions of his superior as more of a "suggestion" than an actual instruction.
On his first day on the stand, Yep insisted that he didn't follow a superior's "suggestion" that Meng be arrested on the plane because of safety concerns. Once she stepped into the airport, Yep said the CBSA had jurisdiction.

Meng's lawyers also questioned Yep about the affidavit he swore to a judge when obtaining her arrest warrant. The affidavit said that Meng had "no ties" to Canada when she in fact she was known to own two houses.

Yep claimed he didn't find out about the houses until after he obtained the warrant. When Meng's lawyer asked him if he had been concerned about the truthfulness of affidavit he swore to the judge, Yep said he couldn't remember, while admitting the affidavit was not correct.

Meng's lawyer also asked Yep about the instructions he had received from Department of Justice lawyer John Gibb-Carsley the day before Meng's arrival, in which he was told to discretely find Meng, advise her of her charter rights, and then arrest her.

Yep again said he took those instructions as more of a suggestion than an actual order. Instead Meng was held by customs and immigration (CBSA) and questioned for hours without benefit of a lawyer or normal rights before Yep arrested her.

One of the things the defence are expected to focus to focus on is this discrepancy between the arrest warrant which said to arrest Meng "immediately", and what actually happened.
 
Here's the next day's court action.
CBSA officer claims Meng Wanzhou was flagged for 'national security' concerns ahead of arrival

CBSA officer Scott Kirkland said that Meng had been flagged for "national security" attention before her arrival in Vancouver. He didn't elaborate on the exact reasons, but he said that because Australia and New Zealand had banned Huawei equipment and the UK were thinking of doing the same she was centred out for special attention.

Apparently a colleague suggested that CBSA pull Meng aside on arrival. Kirkland stated that he had said she should just be identified and handed over to the waiting RCMP immediately. He said there were concerns about possible Charter of Rights and Freedoms issues should the matter end up in court, but on the other hand "we also have a job to do".

Kirkland also said that they knew this case was "going to be a big deal and it was going to be a huge issue" when he saw the "national security" flag in the CBSA database and the allegations against her.

Kirkland had Meng place her phones in bags that had been provided by the US FBI and which were intended to prevent them from being remotely wiped.

He also asked Meng for the phone numbers and PIN codes, and wrote these on a piece of paper. He said he discovered a few days later that he no longer had the piece of paper.

When asked by Meng's lawyer what he would have done had he realised that the RCMP had taken the paper, he said he would have immediately asked for it back, as the RCMP were not permitted to have the numbers and codes as it is a Privacy Act violation.
 
'Baldrick's apple crumble.'
 
On Thursday the judge agreed to let Meng's lawyers pursue the claim that the US misled Canada with regards to the basic substance of their case against her. This is viewed as a significant development.
Meng Wanzhou scores victory as lawyers allowed to argue U.S. tried to trick Canada

Here's the actual court ruling.
Ruling on (a) Application by Person Sought to Adduce Evidence under s. 32(1)(c) of the Extradition Act, and (b) Vukelich Application by Requesting State

If successful this could lead to a stay of proceedings, or it may just mean cutting out parts of the crown's record which are deemed unreliable.

The US has submitted a set of Power Point slides from Meng's presentation to HSBC in Hong Kong in 2013. Meng's lawyers say that the US deliberately omitted two slides which show that Meng did not mislead HSBC.

The US also claim that only "junior" HSBC employees knew about Huawei's ties with Skycom. Meng's lawyers state that senior executives were fully informed however.

The question at issue here is not with the actual charges that Meng faces in the US, but rather whether the US was truthful about whether they had a legitimate case against her. The judge appears to be allowing the latter to be addressed.

The issues raised in this week's set of hearing will be addressed in another set of hearings in February of 2021.

I haven't read the BC court ruling yet, a link to which can be found above.
 
I've had a look over the BC court ruling, and the items that jumped out at me as being significant are the following.

First we must remember that the heart of the US case against Meng is that the US claim that she concealed a relationship between Huawei and Skycom, the latter being a telecoms company in Iran. This supposedly caused HSBC to take actions which could have place them in jeopardy of violating US sanctions law should they clear US dollar payments through the US. The key point in all this is whether Huawei told HSBC whether or not they exercised control over Skycom.

The US omitted part of the PowerPoint presentation where Meng told HSBC executives that Huawei had a "controllable" business relationship with Skycom. The judge underlined "controllable" as significant.
[37] However, I do agree with Ms. Meng that the summary in the ROC should have included certain statements from the PowerPoint that add further precision to Ms. Meng’s statements about Huawei’s business relationship with Skycom in Iran.

[38] The most notable omission is a single phrase in the last slide: “Huawei’ engagement with Skycom is normal and controllable business cooperation, and this will not change in the future” (emphasis added). A similar statement is included earlier in the summary, but that statement did not include the word “controllable”, reading, “Huawei’s engagement with Skycom is normal business cooperation”.

[39] The requesting state’s case, at its foundation, alleges that Ms. Meng lied in denying that Skycom was a subsidiary of Huawei and in representing that Huawei had divested itself of Skycom’s shares and control. It asserts that in reality Huawei exercised control over Skycom such that Skycom “was” essentially Huawei in Iran. Ms. Meng’s use of the word “controllable” therefore carries potential significance. The omission is realistically capable of establishing that the ROC’s summary is unreliable as a representation of Ms. Meng’s statements to HSBC about whether Huawei controlled Skycom. Fairness therefore requires the admission of this evidence.

[40] The evidence of this statement will not be admitted to offer an alternative explanation or inference to those suggested by the ROC, or for the purpose of supporting credibility findings. Rather, this evidence will be admitted to ensure that the extradition judge is in a position to engage in a meaningful assessment of the reliability of the ROC.


At the meeting in Hong Kong Meng spoke in Chinese and the PowerPoint was in Chinese. An interpreter translated this into English for the HSBC executives. HSBC have confirmed that the English version is consistent with what Meng told them at the meeting.
[27] I pause to note that both Ms. Meng’s oral presentation in the meeting and the PowerPoint were in Chinese and translated by her interpreter into English for the HSBC executive. The ROC indicates that after the meeting, HSBC requested, and was sent, an English translation of the PowerPoint, and that the HSBC executive has confirmed that the English version is consistent with Ms. Meng’s statements in the meeting. For this reason, and because counsel in the hearing did not distinguish Ms. Meng’s oral statements in the meeting from the content of the PowerPoint, I will refer only to the PowerPoint in the following discussion.

Another important point is that the US has claimed that only "junior employees" of HSBC knew of Huawei's relationship with Skycom. For the first time that I have seen anywhere the job titles of these "junior employees" are revealed. They are "Vice President, Global Banking” and “Senior Vice President, Global Payment”. It may be going out on a limb, but I suspect that Vice Presidents and Senior Vice Presidents may do more than just make the coffee.
[81] Ms. Meng seeks to adduce the evidence of Hou Jianguang (a Huawei forensic expert in computer science and IT) to show that HSBC knew more than the ROC represents about the true relationship between Huawei and Skycom. She submits that the ROC diminishes the seniority of the HSBC personnel who knew of the true relationship by describing them in general terms as “junior employees”.

[82] Ms. Meng would tender evidence of emails retrieved by Hou Jianguang showing that the HSBC personnel who had information indicating that Huawei and Skycom were closely associated included two individuals who held titles of, respectively, “Vice President, Global Banking” and “Senior Vice President, Global Payment”.

A wide range of other issues are dealt with in the ruling and perhaps some of them may turn out to be significant, but the above are the ones that seemed most relevant to me.
 
The Meng Wanzhou trail resumed last week. I have collected the week's worth of news stories below.

Meng Wanzhou back in court as observers ponder influence of Biden presidency

Meng Wanzhou's lawyers claim key RCMP witness refusing to testify at extradition hearing

CBSA officer insists Meng Wanzhou represented legitimate national security concern

'Witness safety' concern raises questions about key witness decision not to testify in Meng Wanzhou case

Apparently the currently retired RCMP sergeant (Ben Chang) who is believed to have important information about alleged information sharing between Canada and the US in connection with the arrest of Meng is refusing to testify at Meng's hearing and has retained his own lawyer.
Lawyers for Meng Wanzhou claim a retired RCMP staff sergeant with crucial knowledge about alleged information sharing between Canadian and U.S. authorities is refusing to testify at the Huawei executive's extradition proceedings.

Defence lawyer Richard Peck told the judge overseeing the case Monday that Ben Chang has retained counsel and informed the defence and the Crown that he will not be appearing in court to answer questions about alleged violations of Meng's rights.

"That is a matter that will be of some concern to all parties, particularly the defence," Peck told B.C. Supreme Court Associate Chief Justice Heather Holmes.

"There may be any number of consequences from his refusal to testify."

Sergeant Ben Chang was the head of the RCMP's "financial integrity unit" at the time.
According to documents previously filed in the case, Chang was the head of the RCMP's financial integrity unit at the time of Meng's arrest at Vancouver's airport on Dec. 1, 2018.

Chang had signed an affidavit denying having sent sensitive information taken from Meng's electronic devices to the US authorities.
Chang's testimony was expected to address questions around the collection of electronic serial numbers and technical information related to Meng's devices.

The defence claims a legal attaché with the FBI told Chang the agency wanted the information — a request that would normally by considered through a mutual legal assistance treaty between the U.S. and Canada.

In an affidavit, Chang denied sending the technical information to the FBI.

However, the notes belonging to another RCMP sergeant, Jaince Vander Graaf say that according to constable Gurvinder Dhaliwal, Chang in fact did.
But the notes of another officer — Sgt. Janice Vander Graaf — indicated that a colleague — Const. Gurvinder Dhaliwal — told her Chang had sent the information across the border.

These events matter because they may relate to the abuse of process matters raised by Meng's lawyers.

Meng's lawyers are pointing out the inconsistency between these accounts.
In court documents, Meng's lawyers claimed that the denials of any wrongdoing by the RCMP in relation to the technical information raised "many more questions than answers."

They also said "material inconsistencies" in the affidavits of Chang, Dhaliwal and Vander Graaf set up "a credibility contest" between the three officers.

Two CBSA officers testified on Monday (the 16th). Meng's lawyer accused one of them (McRae) of fabricating evidence about the instructions he received from a supervisor. The lawyer also pointed out the distinct lack of notes and ability to recall what happened, and said that the CBSA officers were under instruction to create as little paperwork as possible about what went on.
Two CBSA officers took the stand Monday. Supt. Bryce McRae oversaw operations on the day Meng was detained, and Supt. Sanjit Dhillon was one of the officers who asked questions.

McRae spent the morning under pointed cross-examination from defence lawyer Mona Duckett, who accused the officer of fabricating evidence about the advice he claimed to have received from a supervisor.

Duckett also pointed out the paucity of notes and recollections about what happened on the day of the arrest, suggesting that CBSA officers were under instruction to create as little paperwork as possible about the events.

The other CBSA officer (Dhillon) claimed that he became aware that there some security concerns about Meng because he read a Wikipedia article about her before he interviewed her.
The other officer, Dhillon, told a Crown lawyer that he conducted an "open source" search prior to Meng's arrival by looking at Huawei's Wikipedia page. He claimed to have learned about controversies including suspicions of espionage and the sanctions-related allegations.

Dhillon said he asked Meng questions about those issues when he spoke with her directly at a point when she wanted to know why the CBSA examination was taking so long.

Dhillon questioned Meng at length about Huawei's activities in Iran, and then she was handed over to the RCMP.
According to Dhillon's statutory declaration, he also asked Meng questions about Huawei's activities in Iran, but the Crown had not addressed that part of the examination by the time court wrapped for the day.

Dhillonn said he never asked Meng directly about the extradition arrest warrant and the U.S. charges— the reason she was about to be arrested.

"I wanted her to speak to it, if it came to her mind," Dhillon said. "If my interview had continued, I would have gotten to that point."

But instead, another officer told him the examination was over. And Meng was handed to the RCMP.

Dhillon said that the reason that CBSA needed to question Meng about Huawei's activities in Iran before handing her over to the RCMP was so that they could decide whether she should be allowed into Canada.
A Canada Border Services Agency officer who questioned Meng Wanzhou at Vancouver's airport nearly two years ago will face more tough questions Wednesday as the Huawei executive's lawyers continue to grill him about his supposed concerns over national security.

In tense cross examination Tuesday, CBSA Supt. Sanjit Dhillon insisted the border agency needed to conduct its own queries before Meng could have been turned over to RCMP — setting in motion the process that would have afforded her access to a lawyer.

He said his questions, combined with Meng's "non-verbal behaviour" yielded information that could still form the basis of a legitimate investigation into whether Meng could remain in Canada — a process interrupted by her arrest and adjourned until the outcome of the extradition proceedings currently underway in B.C. Supreme Court.

The defence say that the real reason was so that CBSA could use their extraordinary powers to questioned her for hours without a lawyer.
The defence has rejected that assertion, suggesting that the real reason the CBSA examined Meng for three hours before she was arrested was so U.S. and Canadian authorities could use the agency's extraordinary powers to question her without informing her she was wanted for fraud.

Meng's lawyers ridiculed the alleged national security reasons given by Dhillon and asked him if he was afraid that Meng would engage in espionage while in jail after leaving with the RCMP in handcuffs. Dhillon's reply was "I don't know".
Defence lawyer Mona Duckett ridiculed Dhillon's insistence that he acted properly.

"You had live national security concerns you say at the time that prevented you from immediately deferring and watching Ms. Meng go out in handcuffs with the RCMP?" she asked.

"Yes," Dhillon replied.

"You were afraid she was going to commit some espionage in the detention centre?" Duckett asked.

"I don't know," Dhillon replied.

In a statutory declaration written the date of the arrest Dhillon stated that he questioned Meng about whether her company sold products in Iran that they should not. It's not clear to me what relevance this had to CBSA.
In a statutory declaration written on the day of Meng's arrest, Dhillon said he asked Meng questions about Huawei's business in Iran.

The statement was read into the court record on Tuesday.

"The subject was then asked, if her company sold products in countries that they should not. The subject appeared confused by this question. I rephrased the question and asked the subject if her company sold products or did business in Iran," Dhillon wrote.

"The subject initially stated, 'I don't know.'"

The fourth article above is about currently retired RCMP sergeant Ben Chang's involvement in the case. I won't attempt to summarise it all, but it contains some interesting points.

Chang has refused to testify in the case, and has retained his own lawyer. An affidavit sworn by Chang is contradicted by testimony given by other RCMP officers.

It''s not clear where Chang is currently living, but at the time the trial started he was apparently retired and living and working in Macau, in southern China (near Hong Kong).


The South China Morning Post turned up documents stating that in October 2019 Chang had a phone call with and a Department of Justice lawyer which is apparently related to this case. The substance of that phone call has been held back for reasons given as "witness safety".

It's not clear at this point what the reasons for refusing to release a transcript of the phone call are, although the contradictions in Chang's testimony are probably foremost in the minds of Meng's lawyers in this regards.
 
Top