Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 13 submissions in the queue.
Politics

Second Canadian Detained in China

posted by Fnord666 on Friday December 14 2018, @04:59AM   Printer-friendly
from the 2-for-1 dept.

takyon writes:

Canadian Michael Spavor detained in China as Huawei row continues

A second Canadian has been detained in China on accusations of harming national security, as tension continues between the two countries. It was confirmed on Thursday that Michael Spavor, a businessman, had been detained in addition to former diplomat Michael Kovrig.

Canada drew Chinese protests after it arrested an executive at telecoms giant Huawei at the request of the US. Meng Wanzhou has been bailed but may face extradition for fraud.

[...] Michael Spavor is a businessman based in Dandong, near the Chinese border with North Korea. He has ties to the North Korean government and has met its leader Kim Jong-un many times.

Ex-diplomat Michael Kovrig currently works for a think tank, the International Crisis Group (ICG), which has said it is concerned for his health and safety. He is being held officially "on suspicion of engaging in activities that harm China's state security".

However, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman, Lu Kang, suggested another reason, saying the ICG had not been registered as a non-governmental organisation (NGO) in China and therefore it was unlawful for its staff to work there. Checks by Reuters news agency did not turn up a registration for ICG on government databases for NGOs or social enterprises.

Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland has said Mr Kovrig's case was raised directly with Chinese officials.

The article has a photo of Spavor standing with Dennis Rodman.

Previously: Canada Arrests Huawei's Global Chief Financial Officer in Vancouver
Arrest of Huawei Executive Causing Discontent Among Chinese Elites
China Arrests Former Canadian Diplomat; Chinese Companies Ban iPhones, Require Huawei Phones

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Second Canadian Detained in China | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 45 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Friday December 14 2018, @06:11AM (7 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 14 2018, @06:11AM (#774289) Journal

    Canada should release their prisoner to everyone's satisfaction

    Why is it to your satisfaction to let a rich person get away with fraud?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Flamebait=2, Insightful=1, Interesting=2, Total=5
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 14 2018, @09:36AM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 14 2018, @09:36AM (#774328)

    let a rich person get away with fraud

    Are allegations already established facts in your mind?
    Fraud by whose laws?

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Friday December 14 2018, @01:13PM (3 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 14 2018, @01:13PM (#774371) Journal

      Are allegations already established facts in your mind?

      Irrelevant. The arguments to release Meng have not been made on the basis of whether or not she was guilty of the crime. Thus, they are implying that she should be released even if she has committed fraud of the sort described in the extradition request.

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 14 2018, @04:00PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 14 2018, @04:00PM (#774443)

        “Five Eyes” intelligence agencies behind drive against Chinese telecom giant Huawei [wsws.org]

        The objective logic of [Meng's arrest] was underlined in an article [archive.org], also published in the [Australian Financial Review] yesterday, by Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs.

        The arrest of Meng Wanzhou, he wrote, “is a dangerous move by US President Donald Trump’s administration in its intensifying conflict with China. If, as Mark Twain reputedly said, history often rhymes, our era increasingly recalls the period preceding 1914. As with Europe’s great powers back then, the United States, led by an administration intent on asserting America’s dominance over China, is pushing the world towards disaster.”

        Sachs drew attention to the hypocrisy surrounding the detention of Meng on charges of committing fraud in breach of US-imposed bans on dealing with Iran. He noted that in 2011 JP Morgan Chase paid $88.3 million in fines for violating US sanctions against Cuba, Iran and Sudan. “Yet [CEO] Jamie Dimon wasn’t grabbed off a plane and whisked into custody.”

        None of the heads of banks or their financial officers was “held accountable for the pervasive law-breaking in the lead-up to or aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis” for which the banks paid $243 billion in fines.

        • (Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Friday December 14 2018, @04:29PM (1 child)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 14 2018, @04:29PM (#774451) Journal

          Sachs drew attention to the hypocrisy surrounding the detention of Meng on charges of committing fraud in breach of US-imposed bans on dealing with Iran. He noted that in 2011 JP Morgan Chase paid $88.3 million in fines for violating US sanctions against Cuba, Iran and Sudan. “Yet [CEO] Jamie Dimon wasn’t grabbed off a plane and whisked into custody.”

          What was the crime that JP Morgan Chase committed?

          The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control said in a news release that JPMorgan processed wire transfers totaling around $178.5 million for Cuban nationals in late 2005 and early 2006, violating United States embargo laws. The bank’s officers discovered the transfers in 2005, after they were tipped off by another financial institution, but failed to report them and did not take adequate steps to prevent more transfers, according to the statement. The release did not say which institution made the initial discovery.

          The bank was also fined for a 2009 incident in which it made a $2.9 million loan to a bank that had ties to Iran’s government-owned shipping line, a violation of United States sanctions against the Middle Eastern nation. Again, JPMorgan Chase learned of the apparent violation early on but did not disclose it to regulators until March 2010, three days before it was repaid for the loan.

          A third violation occurred in 2010 and 2011, when the bank failed to give up documents about a wire transfer that referred to Khartoum, the capital of Sudan. According to the release, the agency gave JPMorgan a list of documents believed to be possessed by JPMorgan. In response, JPMorgan, which previously said it had no such documents, produced more than 20 of the items in question.

          Treasury officials called the bank’s actions “egregious” and said that JPMorgan’s “managers and supervisors acted with knowledge of the conduct constituting the apparent violations and recklessly failed to exercise a minimal degree of caution or care.”

          In other words, egregious negligence versus the worse, deliberate fraud. Why again should the proposed punishment for the crime be as slight as it was for JP Morgan?

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Friday December 14 2018, @06:14PM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday December 14 2018, @06:14PM (#774495) Journal

      Fraud by whose laws?

      The laws of Canada AND the US, as is required per our extradition treaty with them.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday December 14 2018, @06:17PM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday December 14 2018, @06:17PM (#774498) Journal

      Are allegations already established facts in your mind?

      He didn't say they were. After the allegation comes the trial which establishes the facts. The person needs to actually show up to court, though, which is the phase we're currently at.