Huawei should not be surprised by the fact that Ms.Meng has been detained and faces extradition.The duration of bail hearings and the conditions of bail appear to be relatively harsh and rare.In fact,Canadian courts rarely refuse bail,except for a few highly harmful and malignant criminal offences.The Canadian Federal Criminal Code does not provide for discriminatory treatment even for non residents who are formally charged with criminal charges,based on the principle of the presumption of innocence.Ms.Meng has not even been criminally charged or convicted by the United States.This is a prerequisite for requesting extradition and arrest.These prerequisites are not met.The party requesting extradition clearly relies on the"temporary arrest"clause of Article 11 of the US Canada Extradition Treaty,"Emergency Moments".If the United States Department of Justice cannot submit the documents and evidence required by the treaty within 45 days,the Canadian courts must restore Meng's personal freedom.Fortunately and unfortunately,bail and extradition defenses require a high level of defense,requiring not only a comprehensive understanding and analysis of the integrity and reliability of extradition documents in a very short period of time,but also a profound understanding of the political and economic factors in the relations of the relevant countries,and a good and spotless legal counsel practice record.In addition to the court systems of both countries,extradition cases also directly involve the administrative,diplomatic,and law enforcement departments of at least two countries.The extradition law is ancient and brand new,belonging to the modern cold weapon.A slight carelessness may turn a live case into a dead case,making it difficult to overturn it.

As for the defense of the Meng case,it is particularly important to understand the specific provisions of treaties and determine the interpretation of relevant concepts in Canadian written and case law based on them.Among them,the following issues are particularly important.

The first major issue in the Meng case is whether the arrest of Meng is based on the"extradition"requirement in Article 1 of the treaty or the"provisional arrest"for 45 days in Article 11.The treaty basis for arrest must be clear,otherwise it will become illegal detention.The formal requirements for documents and evidence under these two provisions are different."Extradition"presupposes that Meng himself(not Huawei or Skycom)has been criminally charged or convicted by a criminal court in the United States.This condition is not currently available.However,according to media reports,sources from the Canadian government said that the arrest of Meng was based on an extradition request from the United States and was not a"temporary arrest"."Temporary arrest"can only be made"before submitting a request for extradition through diplomatic channels".This requires careful consideration of what requests the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has received from the State Department and what instructions the Royal Mounted Police have received.If it is a"provisional arrest",it also requires the requesting country to submit a statement that the court of that country has issued a warrant for arrest or convicted Meng himself.These situations have not yet occurred,at least not clearly.

The second big question is whether the alleged criminal act committed by Meng occurred in the United States or abroad.No one(country)has made this point clear until now.If Meng commits a crime listed in a treaty in the United States,the United States can automatically request extradition.However,if the incident occurred in Java(outside the United States),it would fall within the scope of Article 3(3)of the treaty:whether to extradite depends on the discretion of the Canadian Prime Minister's Office.In other words,this situation may require consensus between the two sides to arrest Meng.

The third key question is what crime Meng committed and what evidence of the crime is.This is crucial because the treaty stipulates that extradition only applies to the 30 crimes listed in the annex,and the evidence needs to meet the criteria for conviction or at least the issuance of an arrest warrant.Strangely,the key point is still the cloud.Although there are no official documents available,the extradition requests reported by the media appear to be based on the bank fraud in Annex 16 of the Treaty.The problem is that the customer of these banks is Skycom,and Meng is neither the borrower nor the legal representative;And only Meng's identity as a director before 2009 can be determined;Although Huawei is alleged to have always controlled the company,there is no direct evidence that even the list of Skycom shareholders and the board of directors cannot be listed.The"email"and"record"mentioned in the document are only superficial or environmental evidence at most.In fact,some multinational companies in the United States also have situations where outsourcing companies can use their company email addresses."These speculative materials are not valuable evidence,and it is not enough to convict a jury.".What's more,those"victims"of big bank risk control actually believe that what Skycom and Meng said is true.These people are not easy to fool!It seems farfetched to consider these US banks'violation of sanctions as damage to fraud.

The fourth point is both a big issue and a big question:whether Meng(lawyer)raised substantive,treaty,constitutional,and criminal law defences at the bail hearing that was just concluded.Judging from media reports and information flowing from the hearing site,such a defense has not been raised.The proposed defense only emphasizes the"political factor"of extradition.This may seem elegant,but it also seems to accord with the views of many people,but its practical significance is not significant.Although article 4 of the treaty does not recognize political extradition,it also stipulates that the question of whether it constitutes political extradition needs to be determined by the requesting State.Therefore,it is difficult to say that the defense of"political extradition"is an effective defense unless the offence to which extradition refers is not included in the annex to the treaty.

The fifth key point is how to"freeze"and"fix"the scope of charges and charges against Meng as soon as possible.This is important not only for Bangladesh,but also for Huawei.This means that once a request for extradition is made,it is necessary to clarify the charges,evidence,or convicted offences at the same time;Once confirmed,the charges cannot be changed or added after extradition.Therefore,it is necessary to request the court and the Justice Department of Canada to confirm the full content of the extradition request as soon as possible,as well as whether the arrest of Meng is an"extradition"arrest or a"temporary arrest".The latter has an indefinite time of 45 days.All this involves not only treaty interpretation,but also possibly intergovernmental cooperation.According to the treaty,with the consent of the requested country(Canada),the requesting country(the United States)can change and increase the charges charged in criminal cases.Due to Canada's high judicial independence,courts have the ability to restrict to some extent the manner and extent of such cooperation that may occur between governments when interpreting treaties.

The sixth key point can be explosive:extradition is often accompanied by requirements for the collection and seizure of evidence.Upon the request of the requesting party,the requested State shall hand over to the requesting State all objects that may constitute evidence.In addition to printed documents,the most important are computer data and communication records.These uncertainties may have a profound impact on the next step of the case.

Therefore,the most important and uncertain legal battlefield of the Meng case is in Canada.It is very important to effectively and accurately grasp the key legal points mentioned above.

(This article is translated by software translator for reference only.)