1

While the US deferred prosecution against Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou, they only did so in exchange for a four-page "statement of fact", which sounds pretty incriminating against Huawei as a company.

“In entering into the deferred prosecution agreement, Meng has taken responsibility for her principal role in perpetrating a scheme to defraud a global financial institution,” Nicole Boeckmann, the acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, said Friday. “Her admissions in the statement of facts confirm that, while acting as the Chief Financial Officer for Huawei, Meng made multiple material misrepresentations to a senior executive of a financial institution regarding Huawei’s business operations in Iran in an effort to preserve Huawei’s banking relationship with the financial institution.”

Since the US is still prosecuting Huawei as a company on this matter, does this "statement of fact" from Meng, which is essentially a confession, improve the prosecution's case against the company?

The FBI at least seems to say that:

“Meng's admissions are evidence of a consistent pattern of deception to violate U.S. law,” said Assistant Director Alan E. Kohler Jr. of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division. “The FBI will continue to aggressively investigate companies doing business in the United States when there are signs they behave with contempt for our laws.”

Can this statement of Meng be entered into evidence against Huawei?

(Although the full "statement of fact" has not yet been made public, at least according to the Guardian newspaper, the DOJ link above has a 12-paragarph summary of what Meng supposedly admitted to.)

3
  • @Burt_Harris: it was not yet made public (in its entirety), according to the press. DOJ's press release (that I have linked to) is probably the most extensive summary you can find right now. Scroll down to "The Scheme to Defraud Financial Institutions"; it's a beefy 12-para section. Sep 25, 2021 at 16:50
  • Perhaps another Question, why didn't they do this three years ago? Sep 25, 2021 at 19:01
  • @KeithMcClary: no idea, but it's worth noting that Huawei (as a company) is not admitting wrongdoing yet. ZTE did it quickly though... was heftily fined by the US (>$1 billion) and lambasted by the Chinese authorities (not just the media) for giving in to the US too quickly. wccftech.com/… Sep 25, 2021 at 19:06

1 Answer 1

2

Yes.

At least one of the cases against Huawei includes charges under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) statutes. To convict under RICO, the government needs to show a continuing pattern of behavior over at least ten years. Admissions of fact could undoubtedly be a part of demonstrating such a pattern.

A key paragraph of the latest SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT says:

  1. The pattern of racketeering activity, as defined in Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1961(1) and 1961(5), consisted of multiple acts indictable under Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 (relating to wire fraud), 1344 (relating to financial institution fraud), 1503 (relating to obstruction of justice), 1512 (relating to tampering with a witness, victim or an informant), 1832 (relating to theft of trade secrets), 1956 (relating to the laundering of monetary instruments), and 2319 (relating to criminal infringement of a copyright). The manner and means of the above-described conspiracy include the allegations set forth in paragraphs one through 87, which are realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth in this paragraph

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .