孟晚舟案要反转吗？

老福

很奇怪，根据最近的报道 (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/ ... ions-us-allegation/)，孟晚舟案的法官在庭审提问时竟然说U.S. allegation is unclear。在整个法律程序的这个阶段提出这样的问题，非常令人吃惊。这是孟晚舟案反转的信号吗？

最核心的部分是黑体部分，基本上法官这样问的：既然美方指控孟晚舟“falsely misrepresented that Huawei didn’t control Skycom”(而且汇丰银行事先不知道华为和Skycom的真实关系)，那么汇丰银行怎么可能仅仅因为孟晚舟说Skycom一切合规没有触犯禁运令就相信Skycom没问题呢？这是一个悖论，二者不可能同时成立。黑体的后半部分是前面一段的后续，法官表示怀疑孟晚舟的presentation会导致汇丰银行触犯法律。

上述论述听起来更像孟晚舟的律师在替她辩护，而且也是法官拒绝接受的新证据要说明的部分。

下面是具体的报道，包括法官的原话。

A B.C. Supreme Court judge who must decide whether Meng Wanzhou can be extradited to New York to face a fraud charge says she doesn’t understand the U.S. allegation against the Chinese executive.
。。。
Before Robert Frater, lawyer for the Attorney-General, could begin to lay out the evidence, Associate Chief Justice Heather Holmes of the B.C. Supreme Court questioned whether the U.S. had explained the essence of the crime it alleged Ms. Meng had committed – and in particular, its connection to sanctions against Iran.

“I’ve had great difficulty understanding,” she said. The judge – a former prosecutor specializing in corporate crime – went on to pose questions about how the United States set out the allegations in the record of the case (ROC) it supplied to Canadian authorities.
。。。
Ms. Meng is charged with fraud for allegedly misrepresenting to HSBC, in a PowerPoint presentation in Hong Kong in 2013, Huawei’s links to Skycom Tech Co. Ltd., another technology company. The U.S. alleges her misrepresentations exposed HSBC to the risk that it would be punished, criminally or civilly, for violating U.S. sanctions on Iran in dealings with Skycom and Huawei.
。。。
“What I don’t understand,” she told Mr. Frater, “is whether the simple fact of dealing with government in Iran would be viewed as offside sanctions.”

“No,” Mr. Frater replied. “It is clear there is good Iran business and bad Iran business.”

“Can you show me that in the ROCs?” (The ROCs are the documents that lay out the evidence and explain the alleged crime.)

Mr. Frater acknowledged: “There isn’t a clear statement of ‘here’s what’s on one side of the line’ and ‘here’s what’s on the other.’”

He said there was a “reasonable inference” that some Iranian business was legal, from the fact that Ms. Meng was candid about doing business in Iran.

“She admits that they’re doing business in Iran. She admits they work … with Skycom. No point in making that admission if all activity in Iran was proscribed,” Mr. Frater said.

“I have been troubled by this issue,” the judge said. “What I’m trying to get at is how does the ROC make all of that clear? That certain things engage sanctions and other things don’t. Because it’s only with that background that one can assess what’s said in the PowerPoint as to whether it was deceptive.”

Mr. Frater said he would get back to her on the point after the lunch break. When they reconvened, he said Huawei was certainly doing permissible business in Iran – but transactions in U.S. dollars put through in the United States were prohibited.

The judge also asked about possible contradictions in Mr. Frater’s summarizing of the case against Ms. Meng: that she told HSBC there was no risk of sanctions violations from Huawei or Skycom, while failing to disclose the true relationship between the two companies.

Associate Chief Justice Holmes said: “As I understand your theory ... the bank had nothing to worry about as far as sanctions violations went because Ms. Meng or Huawei could assure the bank that Skycom was in compliance. Doesn’t that run counter to the theory ... that she falsely misrepresented that Huawei didn’t control Skycom? In other words, how would she be able to give that assurance ... in a way that would be satisfactory and convincing to the bank unless Huawei was in full control of Skycom?”

Mr. Frater said he didn’t see the inconsistency.

The judge then asked whether it was reasonable to suppose that a large bank with risk committees would rely on one individual’s assurance about companies not under its control.

The meeting between Ms. Meng and HSBC was arranged after Reuters published articles suggesting Skycom, which it said had “close ties” with Huawei, was violating sanctions. Associate Chief Justice Holmes expressed skepticism several times that the bank was truly put at risk by Ms. Meng’s presentation after it received a clear warning of sanctions violations in the Reuters reports. For fraud to have occurred, HSBC would have had to face a risk from the misrepresentations.

老福

征久仁 发表于 2021-8-13 08:11
我感觉不太乐观，枫叶政府对中国说不是损失钱，对山姆大叔说不可就没命了。 ...

是这样，法官的问题，本来应该是孟晚舟的律师在双重犯罪那一段提出的。正常情况，如果孟晚舟的律师那时没有提出，现在法官也不会自己主动去问。事出反常即为妖，所以才有孟晚舟案是否反转的问题。

从大局来看，指控孟晚舟是懂王时期的事。对拜登政府而言，即使不喜欢这个指控，也不可能主动撤案，否则会被共和党从政治上攻击。现在如果加拿大法官从法律的角度否定引渡，对拜登政府而言反而是解套。如果真的引渡了，孟晚舟就会成为美国的烫手山药，因为汇丰银行的新证据明确说明美方的指控不能成立，到那时美国怎么办？

老福

那篇报道下网友的评论(很明显，网友普遍认为法官的问题非常有利孟晚舟)：

Fred888：

the US case has taken a broadside hit.  It's taking on water.  The US could make it go away by signaling they might turn the other way if the Minister of Justice withdrew support for extradition on the grounds raised by Justice Holmes.
This could end sooner than we expect.  On the other hand, Schreiber's case took around ten years.  Schreiber didn't want to leave and Meng doesn't want to stay.

Cynical in Toronto:

Canada never should have arrested Meng.  Thank you, Jody Wilson-Raybould, you could have denied the Trumpian request, but instead, you got pushed over.  And let's not forget that Trudeau knew about this before it happened, too.

Spineless Canadians.  I am no China fan, but in this case I hope Meng gets released.  

APK:

I’d bet that if lawyers and judges were paid on a per-case basis, rather than a per hour salary, justice would be more efficient by orders of magnitude.
The Meng trial would have been over long ago.

montrealer0:

As in vague.
Politically motivated.

Hyphenated Canadian:

Meng is getting off.

Goerge Not Bush:

I see a lot of judge blaming for how long the case has dragged on. But judges are duty bound to hear the cases brought before them.

The weaknesses in the case against Meng have long been apparent, but the Minister of Justice and Attorney General has been insistent on prosecuting this case to the max (and letting the two Michaels rot).

Lametti and his predecessor could have put a halt to this questionable case (and gotten the two Michaels back) years ago.

Brendan P. Dick:

You can’t help and wonder if even Ms. Wanzhou realized the glacial pace of the Canadian judiciary, year and half in and the judge only now is clueing in on the case, The obvious explanation is that Canadian judges don’t think anyone who is “white collar” can commit a crime.
So Meng isn't expedited because she landed in a country that allows all corporate crooks to go free, then what, the Americans don’t play by that rule, they’ll understand their case, so will judges and juries and getting out of the true great North only brings you a reprise, not freedom.
It’s big world and one day in the future she could find herself landing in a country that has faster learners.
my suggestion concede defeat, face the charges get this behind you, if the case is that weak then you’ll really go free, the alternative, Canada sets you free you go back to China the bastion of due process, or worse the plane has an emergency landing in Alaska

George Not Bush:

    The government needs only to make the case that, if the crime were alleged to have happened in Canada, the evidence was sufficient to send it to trial.

Wrongly framed – Correct framing is:

    The government needs only to make the case that, if the crime were alleged to have happened between two foreign nationals in another country, Canada would have criminal jurisdiction if the evidence was sufficient to send it to trial.

Mikhailovich:

So this "extradition" is about unilateral US sanctions which have no standing in international law, are therefore illegal, and are in fact, or could be interpreted as acts of war. Of course you can argue that since the US did it, everything is OK, because in effect the US sets its own "laws" of conduct which ipso facto are legal everywhere. That is not the way that "international law" is supposed to work.  The judge asked interesting questions, but the one interesting question she did not ask is whether US unilateral sanctions should be enforced in Canada.  Clearly, they should not if Canada still counts itself an independent state. And all of this, spoiling Canadian-Chinese relations, over a PowerPoint presentation in 2013!  This is nuts.

yukon:

The Judge knows the Liberals need the CCP support with the upcoming election.

Well played Judge, Supreme Court next perhaps?

Michele K:

The judge – a former prosecutor specializing in corporate crime –

What a shame that you are trying to turn this into something political, whereas the judge is actually schooled in all areas necessary to judge this matter.

I think I'll go with Madame Justice over anything you've got to say on the matter.

Wangster75:

so there is good business and bad business in Iran? I was led to believe or have the perception that doing any business with Iran is on United States bad books.  Who decides and what a joke this has become....I sincerely hope Canada get out of being the middleman here

TH16:

You are right.  We are all losing brain cells trying to figure out the legal arguments.  

But you nailed it in the last sentence. At heart, our high minded legal system is getting used for a power play.   We have two seven year olds fighting in a sandbox.  And Canada is the sandbox, getting trampled on.  

BlahBlahBlahh:

This has been one of the most interesting events to watch. I learn about international affairs, law, sanctions, class structure in China. Fascinating.
I hope the judge's questioning will get Meng off our hands and the two Mike's freed. Otherwise I understand there are years more appeals Meng can make.
Although if she gets freed 3 years after being detained, it will make our constant claims of 'Canada follows the rule of law.' seem weak. If our law allows this, what good is it really?

老福

togo 发表于 2021-8-13 08:52
有点象是为孟公主甩锅。你那么大的银行，应该有自己的风险评估部门，不应该听随便一个人的说法 ...

是的，晨大的记录里说加拿大检方提出以“无损失诈骗”罪名判定引渡，这就是说法官的问题起作用了。但是这样一来，美国就失去了管辖权。因为即使孟晚舟对汇丰银行撒谎，如果没有造成汇丰违反美国禁运的损失，美国对孟晚舟和汇丰都没有管辖权，事情发生的地方在香港美国也没有管辖权。没有管辖权，美国凭什么指控孟晚舟。引渡的基础就不存在了。

老福

asquyd 发表于 2021-8-13 08:53
袁绍大败，大家都说这下该听田丰的话了。田丰却说：“我军胜了，我一定能活下来。现在我死定了。”果然，袁 ...

类比似乎不成立。拜登不是懂王，我觉得他不会认为摆脱一个烫手的土豆是个坏事情。

老福

原来孟晚舟的罪状是这个：
Frater accused Meng of making statements to the banker that “went to some length to demonstrate that Huawei had a rigorous approach to sanctions compliance, and that Huawei demanded the same of any partners working in Iran.”

She neglected to tell the banker that Huawei controlled the company, Skycom, that was the subject of HSBC’s concern, he said.

“It’s about leaving an impression. And the message was received exactly as it was intended,” Frater said.
就算孟晚舟回避直接回答问题，难道不是汇丰银行的责任要求对方直接回答问题吗？奇怪的加拿大逻辑。

链接

老福

孟晚舟看来真的很冤枉。下面是孟晚舟律师的arguments (链接)。看过这篇报道以后，我觉得有很大可能孟晚舟可以回国了。

孟晚舟在ppt里明确说Skycom对华为而言是“controllable”。既然已经说Skycom was controllable by Huawei, 怎么可能推断出孟晚舟欺骗汇丰呢？

原文：In any event, he said, there was “no deception.” Ms. Meng made clear that Skycom was “controllable” by Huawei. “How could a reasonable inference of intentional deceit regarding ‘control’ be drawn when she disclosed the ‘controllable’ nature of the relationship in the presentation itself?” he asked.

加拿大政府律师一直在说，只有孟晚舟直接告诉汇丰“the two companies were one and the same”才不算欺骗。孟晚舟律师反驳说在法律意义上讲，这两个公司根本不是“one and the same”。作为汇丰这样的跨国银行（经常处理复杂的业务），也不可能会期望听到这种解释。

原文：Frank Addario, who appeared for Ms. Meng after Mr. Gottardi, said Skycom was a partner of Huawei, and Canadian government lawyers were wrong to maintain HSBC needed to hear from Ms. Meng that the two companies were one and the same.

“First of all,” Mr. Addario said, “that is not legal terminology. They’re not one and the same. Sophisticated entities don’t use terms like that. It might suit for a colloquial expression by a lawyer seven years after the fact, or an FBI agent in a ROC [record of the case], but it’s not a substitute for evidence about what a sophisticated multinational bank wanted to know.”

律师进一步阐述：不管华为与Skycom是一家公司还是商业伙伴，与汇丰承受的风险无关。汇丰所需要知道的仅仅是华为和Skycom在伊朗做生意。孟晚舟关于两个公司关系的说法没有升高汇丰的风险。

原文：Whether Huawei and Skycom were effectively the same company or business partners was, in any case, irrelevant to the sanctions risk, Mr. Gottardi said, citing Mr. Bellinger’s affidavit. “All that HSBC needed to know was that Huawei and Skycom were doing business in Iran,” Mr. Gottardi said. “That being the case, nothing said by Ms. Meng about that relationship was capable of giving rise to sanctions risk.”

进一步：华为已经采取措施，确保自己和Skycom遵从禁运令。美国指控文件也没提供任何证据说华为或Skycom违反了禁运令。

原文：And Huawei had taken measures, he said, to ensure its own, and Skycom’s, compliance with sanctions.

“There is simply no evidence to show in the ROCs that either Huawei or Skycom was non-compliant with sanctions,” Mr. Gottardi said. (The ROCs are documents in which the U.S. sets out the allegations and evidence for Canadian authorities.)

最后一击：即使有禁运，有些伊朗生意的仍然可以做（注：美方没有提供证据说华为或Skycom做了被禁止的生意），这一点，孟晚舟没有丝毫隐瞒。唯一可能犯法的是以美元做的交易通过某一银行的美国分支。但是，Skycom的钱的流向是一家中国银行到一家银行的英国分支（即英国汇丰），这一点不犯法。有问题的是汇丰随后把这笔钱流向美国分支，但这不是Skycom违反禁运令，而是汇丰违反禁运令。

原文：Evidence before Associate Chief Justice Holmes over the past two weeks has shown Ms. Meng was candid about doing business in Iran, and that some business in Iran is permissible, despite the sanctions. A sanctions violation may arise, however, when transactions in U.S. dollars are put through a U.S. office of a bank.

The U.S. government, in the case record, points to business dealings between Skycom and a British company, Networkers, which did telecommunications work in Iran for which Skycom paid it millions of dollars. The money was ultimately routed through HSBC in the U.S.

But Mr. Gottardi said Skycom paid the company in U.S. dollars from a Chinese bank, payments that went to HSBC in Britain. HSBC then chose to put the payments through a U.S. bank branch, he said.

It is not a violation of sanctions, Mr. Gottardi said, “to send Iran-related funds to a U.K. bank. That is all that Skycom did with respect to Networkers.” If anyone violated sanctions, he said, it was HSBC.

老福

老福 发表于 2021-8-14 10:41
孟晚舟看来真的很冤枉。下面是孟晚舟律师的arguments (链接)。看过这篇报道以后，我觉得有很大可能孟晚舟可 ...

没有对比就没有伤害。加拿大政府律师的关于孟晚舟fraud汇丰的说法：

Frater accused Meng of making statements to the banker that “went to some length to demonstrate that Huawei had a rigorous approach to sanctions compliance, and that Huawei demanded the same of any partners working in Iran.”

She neglected to tell the banker that Huawei controlled the company, Skycom, that was the subject of HSBC’s concern, he said.
。。。
He said it was clear Ms. Meng had a criminal intent to mislead. “Ms. Meng’s PowerPoint is clearly an artfully prepared script that is generous in its description of sanctions … but economical in its description of the nature of the Huawei-Skycom relationship. This demonstrates that there is a reasonable inference of the deliberate character of the representations.”

“It’s about leaving an impression. And the message was received exactly as it was intended,” Frater said.

老福

旺旺的考拉熊 发表于 2021-8-14 19:51
这个案子没有政治因素在内，早就结束了，但是这么强大的政治因素在这，恐怕真相是什么根本不重要了。 ...

要想给美加解套回归案情本身就是最好的办法，美国加拿大现在其实都想有一个台阶下。

以前只有西方媒体片面的报道，给人的印象似乎就是孟晚舟真的犯了美方指控的罪行。但是，当案件的具体细节披露出来，当人们可以从证据出发独立得出自己的结论，发现孟晚舟并没有欺诈。这个案子非常非常弱，即使引渡成功，我也根本不相信美国能在自己的法庭上赢。

老福

老福 发表于 2021-8-14 10:41
孟晚舟看来真的很冤枉。下面是孟晚舟律师的arguments (链接)。看过这篇报道以后，我觉得有很大可能孟晚舟可 ...

报道的读者意见：

Barbara1945:

1 hour ago
This extradition case by the US is based on such slim grounds it can only be viewed as harassment of Huawei. It was a terrible idea for the US to go after the CFO of Huawei and put Canada in this impossible position. It has caused enormous damage to our economy and to Canadian citizens. It is time for the US to drop its case and get our citizens back to Canada.

It has also caused Meng hardship as she has been unable to travel and is stuck in Vancouver which although she is not suffering must cause her job performance difficulties. It is also an extremely insulting charge to a woman who deserves respect and is highly respected in China. Imagine charging a CFO of any major Canadian or American company on such flimsy charges. Usually in cases like this the company is charged and faces a fine not an officer of the company who could face a fine or imprisonment.

I hope Chief Justice Holmes does the right thing and dismisses the case.

老福

旺旺的考拉熊 发表于 2021-8-15 04:50
我认为引渡是肯定会成功的，但是最后案子在美国不会成功。看美国政府对华裔教授和研究人员的控诉案件就有 ...

以前媒体不厌其烦地重复美方指控孟晚舟欺诈，我也确实相信了几分。没想到，当所谓的证据公布出来，结果让人看透了根底。这是典型的恶意诉讼。我相信从法律的角度，孟晚舟有很大的胜诉可能。不了解证据之前，我也有与你类似的看法，但现在我认为孟晚舟获释的可能要大于她被引渡。

老福

旺旺的考拉熊 发表于 2021-8-15 07:45
不论在哪里，民意都是很重要的，而真相和证据在政治面前反而没那么重要，不论是媒体，还是加拿大政府已经 ...

民意多变，易于操纵。政客阴阳脸根本都不需要酝酿情绪。这些都可做参考，难以当作决定性因素。西方法律系统，其实对富人阶级而言，还是比较可靠的。而孟晚舟就是富人一枚。

估计不会拖很久的。

老福

旺旺的考拉熊 发表于 2021-8-15 20:29
民意易于操纵，但需要时间，不能今天是友，明天就是敌，孟的这个事情已经出了几年了，民意也是花了大量时 ...

政治，观察的角度有很多种。我基本是从怎么对拜登团队和特鲁多团队最有利的角度看待这个问题，认为从法律角度解套是最佳出路。美加都极力宣扬自己是rule of law的国家，而左派又最喜欢立牌坊，如果法官宣判孟晚舟不应递解到美国的话，舆论很容易转弯。毕竟以前的民意都建立在舆论宣传煽动的基础上，而不是法律事实的基础上，这种民意很容易消解。

老福

老福 发表于 2021-8-14 10:41
孟晚舟看来真的很冤枉。下面是孟晚舟律师的arguments (链接)。看过这篇报道以后，我觉得有很大可能孟晚舟可 ...

最新报道，孟晚舟的律师论证孟晚舟的presentation与汇丰的行为无关。下面黑体一段特别精彩，大意是：（美国指控孟晚舟欺骗汇丰说华为与Skycom没关系导致汇丰乐意与Skycom做生意进而导致触犯美国禁运令的风险）说Skycom与华为无关（注：所谓撒谎的内容）还不如说Skycom是华为的子公司（注：所谓假定不撒谎的话）汇丰更愿意与其做生意。美方的逻辑只有在汇丰更喜欢和与华为无关的第三方做生意而不是直接与华为做生意才成立。而这个假定不成立。

再额外解释一下，如果汇丰因为新闻报道说它正在做生意的Skycom和华为有密切关系（close tie）而产生疑虑的话，它应该去找Skycom要求澄清与华为的关系。汇丰去找华为询问是因为它已经默认华为与Skycom的关系，进而要求华为保证Skycom在伊朗的生意是good business，没有触犯禁运令。孟晚舟就是在给汇丰做这个assurance。如果Skycom在伊朗合法做生意（美方引渡文件没有任何证据说Skycom做了非法生意），汇丰在交易过程中因为美元付款产生的风险与Skycom是独立第三方还是华为的一部分无关，这个风险可以规避，比如采用欧元付款。

原文：
The U.S. alleges that Ms. Meng, the chief financial officer of China’s biggest telecom company, through her lies to HSBC during a PowerPoint presentation in Hong Kong in 2013, exposed the bank to a risk of being punished by the U.S. for violating sanctions on Iran.

“You have to ask what was it that Ms. Meng said that purportedly induced HSBC to violate U.S. sanctions laws,” Mr. Sandler said to Associate Chief Justice Heather Holmes.

。。。


The U.S. charge against Ms. Meng is impossible to understand without some knowledge of U.S. sanctions on Iran. As the Canadian court has heard, some business in Iran is permissible, and Ms. Meng was open about her company, Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., doing business there. Potential violations arise when U.S. dollars are put through U.S. bank branches in certain business involving Iran.

The U.S. alleges Ms. Meng lied to HSBC about Huawei’s connection to Skycom Tech Co. Ltd. She called Skycom a “controllable” partner; the U.S. says Skycom and Huawei were in fact the same company, and that she minimized Huawei’s control.

。。。

The U.S. alleges that Skycom paid a British company, Networkers, millions of dollars for technology services it provided in Iran. Skycom paid Networkers from a Chinese bank. Networkers was using HSBC in Britain, but the bank put the transaction through a branch in the U.S.

Mr. Sandler stressed that the U.S. had never explained how Ms. Meng’s alleged lies influenced the bank’s decision-making.

Even assuming there had been a misrepresentation, Ms. Meng’s PowerPoint made it no more likely that HSBC would handle the Networkers transaction in the manner it did, Mr. Sandler said.

“There’s no connection between the two. What’s interesting is, it’s actually contraindicated,” he said. “You would have thought there would be more comfort in closing the transaction if you thought Skycom was controlled by Huawei as opposed to this separate uncontrolled entity.”

He said the U.S. had supplied no evidence showing how Ms. Meng’s representations affected the bank’s decisions: “You have to ask yourself, where’s the evidence that they would have acted differently if the misrepresentation had not been made?”

律师推论说孟晚舟的案子在加拿大是史无前例的。

原文：

Lawyers fighting the extradition to the United States of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou said they had looked through every known fraud case in Canadian legal history without finding a single one like hers.

In thousands of fraud cases, the victims have relied on an offender’s deceitful words to make choices that cause themselves harm, or that expose them to the risk of harm, Mark Sandler, a lawyer for Ms. Meng, said in the British Columbia Supreme Court on Monday.

But in Ms. Meng’s case, he said, not only was there no harm, and no real risk of harm, but the prosecution had shown no connection between her alleged misrepresentation and any relevant action by her purported victim: the global bank HSBC.

老福

老福 发表于 2021-8-17 10:54
最新报道，孟晚舟的律师论证孟晚舟的presentation与汇丰的行为无关。下面黑体一段特别精彩，大意是：（美 ...

2021.8.17 报道 孟晚舟律师总结陈词

原文：Faulty evidence and false conclusions show why Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou should not be extradited to the United States to face a charge of fraud, her legal team told a B.C. court on Tuesday.
。。。
Mr. Gottardi cited several examples of what he called “manifestly unreliable” evidence: First, that Ms. Meng, far from denying that Skycom was controlled by Huawei, said the opposite – that Skycom was “controllable” by Huawei. Second, Huawei’s control of Skycom did not give rise to any risk of sanctions violations on the part of HSBC, according to a U.S. expert on sanctions law whose evidence the judge has admitted into the case record.

Third, that the terms of a 2012 deferred prosecution agreement that HSBC had entered into in the U.S. (in relation to sanctions violations and weak protections against money laundering) provided for liability only if the bank knowingly violated the U.S. sanctions. Being duped carried no risk, the document said.

Citing a 2006 ruling in which the Supreme Court set out the ground rules for judges, Mr. Gottardi told the judge that the Meng extradition hearing is exactly the kind of case former chief justice Beverley McLachlin warned against: extraditing in an implausible, manifestly unreliable case.

老福

史节 发表于 2021-9-18 20:42
要是这条件能答应早答应了，无非又是放话罢了。有法国的例子摆在那里，谁都知道是圈套，而且国家也不能允 ...

美国人到现在还不承认现实，还想炸胡。这个案子太弱了，对方是第三世界小国还有可能，拿来敲诈中国，是痴心妄想。

老福

不知真假：有个自称哈佛学者的华人川粉陶瑞TaoRay在Twitter上爆料说孟晚舟一方原本希望用交付更多罚金来换取plea no contest，也就是不针对有罪无罪进行辩解，交罚金了事，谈判一度进展顺利，但美国政府内部出现分裂，鹰派人物不满对中共持软弱立场的官员，有意向媒体放风，借助舆论向美国司法部施压。文章称，目前施压已经见效.

虽然不知消息的可靠性，看起来确实像孟晚舟一方的底线。

老福

orleans 发表于 2021-9-23 02:51
plea no contest 也是认罪。这又不是交通违章， 认罪后还会有更多麻烦。

你说得对。

老福

WASHINGTON, Sept 24 (Reuters) - Huawei Technologies (HWT.UL) Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou and U.S. prosecutors are expected to appear in court to say they have reached an agreement to resolve charges against her, according to a source familiar with the matter, in a process that should allow her to leave Canada.

https://www.reuters.com/technolo ... l-court-2021-09-24/

老福

exprade 发表于 2021-9-25 00:02
对美国司法不太了解，想搜索都不知道用什么关键词。能简述一下plea no contest的后续麻烦吗？ ...

搜索 plea no contest vs. plea guilty.

不是法律专家，就不转发搜索结果了。