The extradition case of Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. CFO Meng Wanzhou, slated to resume on Jan. 20 in a 麻豆传媒映画courtroom, may be resolved much quicker than the originally anticipated multi-year timeline, one legal observer says.
That鈥檚 because arguments presented by Meng鈥檚 defence, while expected by some to be centred around the issue of double criminality, or whether Meng鈥檚 alleged U.S. offences also constitute crimes in Canada, may break down to a simple question about the original arrest warrant issued by Canadian courts at the behest of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kurland, Tobe Immigration Law Firm lawyer Richard Kurland said the case could come down to the fact that the courts issued a provisional warrant for the immediate arrest of Meng when she arrived from Hong Kong at 麻豆传媒映画International Airport on a Cathay Pacific flight on December 1, 2018.聽
Meng鈥檚 defence argued that the executive was held at the airport for three hours and was compelled to turn over her electronic devices and passwords prior to being notified she was being arrested. Crown prosecutors have argued that the detention was part of a normal border screening process by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) which had to determine if Meng could enter Canada before the RCMP had jurisdiction to make the arrest.
鈥淟ast year, the court heard the arrest was to take place aboard the aircraft, and then the court heard the arrest was to take place on the tarmac鈥� And then there was the equivalent of the 18-minute Rose Mary Woods gap in the Nixon tape,鈥� Kurland said, referring to former U.S. president Richard Nixon鈥檚 controversial White House audio tapes that eventually led to his resignation. 鈥淲hat happened on that tarmac?鈥� Kurland asked.
Kurland said the Crown will now have to defend the rationale for making the arrest at the airport three hours after Meng鈥檚 arrival rather than on the plane or on the tarmac. He added that the argument that the CBSA had jurisdiction to conduct a border-entry screening ahead of the RCMP will not be sufficient alone to counter the claims by Meng鈥檚 defence team.
鈥淏asically, you are telling the court it鈥檚 not immediate,鈥� Kurland said. 鈥淟et鈥檚 look up the word 鈥榠mmediate鈥� in the dictionary; there鈥檚 just no getting around that. Now, if there鈥檚 a failure to engage in immediate arrest, and there鈥檚 no consequence of that failure, then you can overlook it. But if it鈥檚 a situation where there is a consequence, that is not going to go well [for the Crown].
鈥淚t makes no difference if it鈥檚 the RCMP or the CBSA or whoever. The court ordered immediate arrest; the RCMP and the CBSA both have the authority to arrest. Whoever went first had the obligation by court order to immediately arrest, not to wait three hours.鈥�
If the defence argues that Meng should not have been arrested because the U.S. sanctions she鈥檚 accused of violating do not apply in Canada, that still leaves other alleged offences such as wire fraud and money laundering, which are covered by comparable Canadian laws.
鈥淭he best they can do is to do away with the questions on the Iranian sanctions,鈥� Kurland said. 鈥淏ut what about everything else? One way to try to umbrella-up the double-criminality point is to say that it tainted everything else, and everything else is a mere subset of double criminality. And that鈥檚 an argument鈥� but I suspect it鈥檚 going to go a lot cleaner and simpler than most people believe at this point, because of what happened on the tarmac.鈥�
The Meng arrest has torpe颅doed Ottawa鈥檚 relationship with Beijing over the past year, with the Chinese government arresting multiple Canadian citizens on espionage and drug charges since December 2018 and effectively banning imports of Canada鈥檚 red meats and canola into the world鈥檚 second-largest economy. The case is further complicated by Huawei鈥檚 heavy investment in Canadian technology and its push for inclusion in Canada鈥檚 upcoming 5G wireless network.
Read the original article .
