On the afternoon of August 18, local time in Canada, the trial of Meng Wanzhou’s extradition case in the British Columbia High Court was all over, and the judge did not immediately announce the verdict.
The outside world predicts that the verdict may be announced after Canada's general election this year, that is, in late October or later.
The court debate that day was presented by the prosecution, but the prosecution once again exposed contradictory statements.
The prosecution lawyer said that after the United States sanctions Iran, HSBC has a long-term policy of not cooperating with customers doing business in Iran or processing remittances from Iran through the United States.
When meeting with Meng Wanzhou, the executives of HSBC Bank wanted to explain the situation to Meng Wanzhou.
The judge questioned, since the meeting between HSBC executives and Meng Wanzhou was for this purpose, why after closing the Xingtong Company’s account, continue to liquidate the US dollar business through HSBC's US branch?
The prosecutors were unable to answer this question, but continued to insist that the information obtained by HSBC executives from Meng Wanzhou had no risks in Iran’s business and there would be no remittances.
It did not tell HSBC any transaction information that would violate the regulations.
However, contradictory rhetoric continues to emerge here.
In the presentation file she submitted to HSBC, Meng Wanzhou clearly stated that Huawei and Xingtong conduct business in Iran.
The prosecutor also said that HSBC prohibits accepting business from Iranian customers.
So, how to explain that HSBC is still liquidating Iranian dollars from Xingtong through its US branch?
Moreover, the prosecutors also admitted that HSBC was under the supervision of the "Deferred Prosecution Agreement" at the time and would be punished by the U.S. Department of Justice for violations.
Since there are internal policies and external penalties, HSBC should be cautious about the operations of Huawei and its subsidiaries in Iran, but why didn't HSBC do this?
At the end of the court hearing, the judge decided to hold a meeting on October 1st to agree on a date for the announcement of the verdict.
Observers believe that the judge clearly hopes that the case will be handled by the newly appointed Minister of Justice of Canada after the general election.
No matter what the verdict is, this case is a political case from beginning to end, not a judicial one.
The trial lasted for more than two years, but it gave the case a judicial cloak. The core of the case is still a bargaining chip designed by the United States to contain China. The final settlement of the case still depends on China and the United States.
(Headquarters reporter Zhang Sen)