You are on page 1of 3

PRESS RELEASE ISSUED BY COUNSEL TO WANZHOU MENG REGARDING

SUBMISSIONS DELIVERED TO THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE REGARDING THE


MINISTER'S POWER TO WITHDRAW THE EXTRADITION PROCEEDINGS
Introduction

Given recent comments by former Prime Minister of Canada Jean Chr6tien and of the current
Minister of Foreign Affairs Chrystia Freeland regarding the power of the Minister of Justice to
withdraw the extradition proceedings against Ms. Meng, today the lawyers for Ms. Meng delivered
a comprehensive written submission to the Minister of Justice clarifying the legal basis upon which
the Minister could properly withdraw the extradition proceedings. To do so would be wholly
consistent with the rule of law,

From time to time, Canadian governments have had to make difficult decisions, sometimes at odds
with the foreign policy initiatives of its allies, including the United States, in order to assert
essential Canadian values of human decency, fairness, tolerance and respect for human rights and
the rule of law. In our view, Canada is at cross-roads respecting the United States' request that
Canada extradite Ms. Meng, for conduct that could not be an offence in Canada and which is at
odds with Canadian values and established foreign policy regarding Iran.

As detailed in our submissions to the Minister, the Minister should exercise his discretion to
withdraw the proceedings because the extradition proceedings are without merit and cessation of
the proceedings would be in the best interests of Canada's national interests. At this time, we have
not made our submissions to the Minister public but leave that decision to the Minister.

These Extradition Proceedings Against Ms. Meng are Unprecedented

These extradition proceedings are unique. The factual and legal underpinnings for Ms. Meng's
extradition are without precedent in Canadian law.

The United States maintains that Ms. Meng committed fraud by delivering a PowerPoint
presentation in Hong Kong in2013 to a foreign officer of a foreign bank which is alleged to have
misled the foreign bank as to the relationship between Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. and another
company called Skycom Tech Co. Ltd., which sold telecommunications equipment to customers
in Iran. According to the United States, due to the alleged misrepresentation by Ms. Meng, the
foreign bank was placed at risk of financial loss by processing U.S. dollar transactions related to
the Skycom sales that couldhave exposed the bank to civil or criminal liability in the United States
under U.S. sanctions law.

From Canadian legal, jurisdictional and foreign policy perspectives, this extradition is simply
extraordinary. No similar extradition request has ever been entertained by Canada. Palpably, it is
brought for political purposes as opposed to legitimate criminal law enforcement reasons.

What is most glaring about the extradition request, is that the conduct alleged against Ms. Meng
could never ground a criminal prosecution in Canada. First, there could never be jurisdiction to
prosecute Ms. Meng in Canada: Csnada does not police the conduct offoreign persons inforeign
lands that hqve nothing to do with Canada. Second, there is no double criminality: Ms. Meng's
conduct could not constitute an offence in Canada because only the U.S. has sanctions laws

1
prohibiting foreign entering into U.S. dollar transactions
banl<s for doing business with foreign
companies that sell commercial goods into lran.

For these reasons, the Minister of Justice should reconsider whether to exercise his statutory
discretion under s. 23(3) of the Extradition Act to withdraw the extradition proceedings against
Ms. Meng. To be clear, the Minister and only the Minister has this power.

Our submissions delivered to the Minister today in support of exercising his power to withdraw
the extradition, address in detail the factual, legal and foreign policy reasons why he should
exercise his powers at the earliest time. The Minister's powff to withdraw under s. 23(3) of the
Extradition Act is distinct from the proceedings before the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

No Jurisdiction to Prosecute Ms. Meng in Canada

All of the allegations relevant to the extradition request occurred in a foreignstate (Hong Kong),
involving a foreign national (Ms. Meng) and a foreign bank. None of the conduct occurred in the
United States or Canada. No alleged victim resided in Canada. No aspect of any fact violated any
Canadian law. From a Canadian jurisdictional perspective, there is simply nothing that Ms. Meng
allegedly did in Hong Kong, in making a presentation to a foreign bank, that could give rise to
civil or criminal liability in Canada. In sum, on the alleged facts, Canada could nol prosecute Ms.
Meng for any offence.

Canadadoes not act as an international police force. With rare exceptions, Canada only prosecutes
people and offences that have ao'real and substantial connection" to Canada. From the perspective
of sanctions laws against Iran, following Canada's adoption in 2016 with its coalition partners in
the United Nations Security Council, Germany and the European Union, of the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Canada withdrew most of its sanctions regarding Iran.
Today Canada will only seek to prosecute Canadians or Canadian companies who sell specifically
banned products and/or sell products to specifically black-listed persons in Iran (neither of which
is alleged in Ms. Meng's case). It is not an offence in Canada for a foreign company to sell
telecommunications equipment to Iranian customers or for a foreign bank to provide banking
services to that foreign company regarding those sales. Based on the conduct alleged by the United
States, neither the foreign bank did anything that could be in violation of Canadian law nor could
Ms. Meng be liable in Canada for any criminal offence.

This is to be contrasted with the starkly different American approach to law enforcement whereby
the U.S. effectively polices the world by applying their criminal laws extra-jurisdictionally against
foreign persons for alleged misconduct. In relation to sanctions laws against Iran, although the
United States was an original partner to the JCPOA in 2015 under President Barack Obama, in
May 2018 President Donald Trump abruptly withdrew from the JCPOA and reinstated aggressive
economic sanctions against Iran, including seeking to prosecute foreign banks for engaging in U.S.
dollar transactions regarding foreign companies selling commercial products into Iran.

In this regard, the United States has stood alone since May 8, 2018 in maintaining strict sanctions
laws against Iran that neither Canada nor any of its allies under the JCPOA support.

2
All of thisis highly relevant to the exercise of the Minister's discretion to withdraw the extradition
proceedings against Ms. Meng because under Article 3(2) of the Treaty, it is a fundamental
principle that the Minister may refuse extradition where the assertion of jurisdiction by the
requesting state (l,e..' United States) isooclearly antithetical" to Canadian notions ofjurisdiction.
In our submission, the Minister should exercise that discretion in this case.

No Double Criminality: No Fraud In Canada by Ms. Meng:

In order to extradite a person from Canada, the conduct complained of in the requesting state must
also constitute a crime in Canada. That is the principle of double criminality.

As noted, the United States alleges that Ms. Meng's conduct in Hong Kong in allegedly
misrepresenting the relationship between Huawei and Skycom to the foreign bank, triggered the
potential liability of the foreign bank under U.S. Iran sanctions law. In turn, the United States
claims that the risk that the foreign bank may have violated its unilateral assumption ofjurisdiction
to attempt to bring the entire world in line with its foreign policy views, through U.S. sanctions
law, has been translated into a US theory that Ms. Meng's alleged misrepresentation to the foreign
bank in Hong Kong created a risk of economic deprivation to the foreign bank under U.S sanctions
laws.

Even if Ms. Meng made a misrepresentation (which is denied) to the foreign bank in Hong Kong
about Skycom and its commercial sales into Iran, that conduct could not, as a matter of Canadian
law, ever give rise to a successful prosecution for fraud in Canada. That is because the foreign
bank could never be at risk of economic loss in Canada under Canadian sanctions law. Put simply,
the foreign bank did nothing that could have tripped any Canadian criminal or sanctions laws.
After Canada joined the JCPOA, Canada removed substantially all of its Iran sanctions laws with
the result that it is no longer an offence in Canada for a foreign bank to enter into either U.S. or
Canadian dollar transactions regarding sales by a foreign entity of telecommunications equipment
in Iran.

Accordingly, not only would there be no jurisdiction in Canadian law to lay a charge of fraud
against Ms. Meng, there is also no double criminality in this case.

Canada Has Independent Foreign Policy

Over our history, the Canadian Government has stood up for Canadian values, including the rule
of law, even in circumstances where this has meant a departure from American foreign policy
initiatives. Recently, this has been reflected in the government's resistance to joining the war
against Iraq and, ironically, its resistance to the re-imposition of sanctions against Iran.

In our respectful submission, ending the extradition proceedings against Ms. Meng now is entirely
consistent with Canada's commitment to the rule of law, our international treaties and Canada's
independent foreign policy as reflected in its continuing support for the peace and de-
nuclearization process embodied in the JCPOA.

DATED at Vancouver, British Columbia, this 24ft day of June,2019.

Richard C.C. Peck, Q.C., David J. Martin, Scott K. Fenton and Eric V. Gottardi