/

当前位置:

孟晚舟引渡案判决书(2020.5.28)
2020-06-04

加拿大不列颠哥伦比亚省高等法院温哥华当地时间5月27日上午(北京时间28日凌晨)公布了孟晚舟引渡案的第一个判决结果,认定华为公司副董事长、首席财务官孟晚舟符合“双重犯罪”标准,因此对她的引渡案将继续审理,孟晚舟女士将留在加拿大参加后期的相关听证,并等待新的审判结果。孟晚舟女士当天出庭并听取法庭所做的判决。


以下是上述孟晚舟案判决书英文及中文翻译:


INTRODUCTION

引言


Wanzhou Meng asks for an order discharging her from the extradition process on the basis that, as a matter of law, the “double criminality” requirement for extradition cannot be met.


孟晚舟请求下令解除对其的引渡程序,理由就是,从法律上讲,引渡的“双重犯罪”标准没能得到满足。


The United States seeks Ms. Meng’s extradition for prosecution in the Eastern District of New York for conduct that the Minister of Justice for Canada (in the Authority to Proceed, or ATP) says corresponds to fraud contrary to s. 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.  In the committal hearing, the Attorney General must therefore show, among other things, that the conduct in which Ms. Meng is alleged to have engaged would have amounted to fraud, had that conduct taken place in Canada.


美国要求将孟女士引渡到纽约东区(the Eastern District of New York)起诉,因为加拿大司法部长(负责诉讼当局,简称ATP)称,孟女士的行为等同于欺诈罪,违反了《加拿大刑法》( Criminal Code of Canada)第380(1)(a)条款。因此,总检察长此外还必须在听证会上表明,如果孟女士被指控参与的行为发生在加拿大,将构成欺诈。


Ms. Meng says that the alleged conduct could not have amounted to fraud in Canada because it relates entirely to the effects of US economic sanctions against Iran, and at the relevant time Canada had no such sanctions (just as it has none now).


孟女士称,所指控的行为在加拿大无法构成欺诈,因为该行为全然关系到美国对伊朗经济制裁的效果,而当时加拿大不存在此类制裁(就像现在不存在一样)。


The Attorney General counters first, that the elements of the offence of fraud in Canada can be made out, on the allegations, without reference to US sanctions against Iran; and second, that in any event the sanctions may properly give background or context to the alleged conduct and explain why it mattered.


总检察长反驳道,首先,加拿大欺诈罪的构成要素可以根据指控加以说明,而不必提及美国对伊朗的制裁;其次,在任何情况下,制裁都可能适当地作为所指控行为发生的背景,并解释其重要性。


For the reasons I will give, I find that the allegations depend on the effects of US sanctions.  However, I conclude that those effects may play a part in the determination of whether double criminality is established.  For that reason, Ms. Meng’s application will be dismissed.


基于我将给出的理由,我认为这些指控取决于美国的制裁效果,但我的结论是,制裁效果可能对确定双重犯罪是否成立起到一定作用,因此,孟女士的申请将被驳回。


I will begin by outlining the allegations and the legal framework for this application, before then detailing and discussing the parties’ positions in order to explain my conclusions.


我将首先概述有关这一申请的指控和法律框架,然后详细说明和讨论双方的立场,以便解释我的结论。


THE ALLEGATIONS MADE BY THE REQUESTING STATE

请求国提出的指控


The application is made in the context of allegations set out by the USA in the Record of the Case (ROC) and the Supplemental Record of the Case (SROC).  These documents, filed under s. 33 of the Extradition Act, summarize the evidence that the US authorities certify is sufficient and available for Ms. Meng’s prosecution in that jurisdiction.


此项申请是处于美国在“案件记录”(ROC)和“案件补充记录”(SROC)中提出指控的背景下提交的。这些文件是根据《引渡法》(Extradition Act)第33条提交的,总结出经美国当局证实要在该司法管辖区起诉孟女士的证据是充分有效的。


It is important to note that these allegations are unproven but must be taken as true for the purpose of this application. Ms. Meng intends to dispute the allegations, but accepts that this application must be argued as though they were unchallenged.


要指出这些指控未经证实,但就本申请而言必须视指控为真实的,这一点很重要。孟女士打算对这些指控提出异议,但她承认,虽然这些指控没有受到质疑,但必须质疑这一申请。


The allegations relate to the banking relationship between Huawei, a China-based telecommunications company, and HSBC, an international bank. Ms. Meng was (and is) Huawei’s Chief Financial Officer, as well as the daughter of its founder, Ren Zhengfei. She is said to have made false statements to HSBC in 2013, significantly understating Huawei’s relationship with Skycom Tech. Co. Ltd., a company based in Iran.


这些指控牵涉到中国电信公司华为(Huawei)与国际银行汇丰银行(HSBC)之间的银行业务关系。孟晚舟曾是(现在也是)华为首席财务官,还是华为创始人任正非之女。据说,孟女士2013年向汇丰银行作了虚假陈述,明显低估了华为与伊朗Skycom科技有限公司(Skycom Tech. Co. Ltd)的关系。


The banking relationship between Huawei (and its subsidiaries and affiliates) and HSBC (and its US subsidiary) ran from at least 2007 to 2017, and involved very significant transactions, including the following.  HSBC’s US subsidiary cleared very substantial dollar transactions for various Huawei entities between 2010 and 2014.  In August 2013, HSBC coordinated a syndicated loan to Huawei in an amount equivalent to USD $1.5 billion, and was one of the principal lenders.  In April 2014, HSBC sent Huawei a signed letter describing negotiated terms for a USD $900 million credit facility.  HSBC was also part of a syndicate of banks that loaned Huawei USD $1.5 billion in July 2015.


华为(及其子公司和附属公司)与汇丰银行(及其在美国的子公司)之间的银行业务关系至少从2007年持续到2017年,涉及以下非常重大的交易。汇丰银行在美国的子公司2010年至2014年间为华为各实体完成了大量的美元交易。2013年8月,汇丰银行协调出一笔金额相当于15亿美元的银团贷款给华为,成为主要放贷人之一。2014年4月,汇丰银行向华为发送了一封签名信,描述了9亿美元信贷安排的议定条款。汇丰银行还是2015年7月向华为提供15亿美元贷款的银行集团成员之一。


This all occurred while regulations were in place in the US that, among other prohibitions and restrictions, required banks to obtain authorization from the US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control before providing financial or credit services through the US to entities in Iran.  Counsel in the committal hearing referred to these regulations, officially titled the Iranian Transaction and Sanctions Regulations, as the “US sanctions”, and I will do so too.  In this application, the details of the US sanctions do not matter, except that, as appears to be agreed as a general proposition, violations could lead to criminal and civil penalties.


这一切发生时,美国实施了相关条例,除了其他禁令和限制外,这些条例要求银行在通过美国向在伊朗的实体提供金融或信贷服务之前,必须获得美国财政部外国资产控制办公室(the US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control)的授权,条例官方名称为《伊朗交易和制裁条例》(Iranian Transaction and Sanctions Regulations),以此作为“美国对伊朗的制裁”,而且我也会这么做。在这项申请中,美国制裁的细节并不重要,但就好像作为达成的普遍提议,违规行为可能导致刑事和民事处罚。


HSBC had run afoul of the US sanctions relating to Iran and other countries before the events relating to the allegations against Ms. Meng.  It entered into a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) with the US Department of Justice in December 2012, in which it agreed not to commit further sanctions violations, as well as to undertake various remedial measures and to pay forfeitures and penalties amounting to well over a billion dollars.


在孟晚舟被指控事件发生之前,汇丰银行曾违反了美国对伊朗和其他国家的制裁。2012年12月,该银行与美国司法部(US Department of Justice)签订了一份延期起诉协议(DPA),同意不再违反制裁,以及采取各种补救措施,并支付超过10亿美元的罚款和罚金。


Against this backdrop, Reuters published two articles associating Huawei with Skycom’s US-related business dealings in Iran.  The first article, published in December 2012, reported that Skycom had offered to sell US manufactured computer equipment to Iran’s largest telecommunications equipment maker in violation of US sanctions.  The article reported that Huawei and Skycom had “close ties”, and that Huawei described Skycom as one of its “major local partners” in Iran.  The second article, published in January 2013, reported various connections between Huawei and Skycom, including that Ms. Meng served on Skycom’s board from February 2008 to April 2009, and that in 2007 she was company secretary for a Huawei holding subsidiary that, in turn, owned 100% of Skycom’s stock.


在此背景下,路透社发表了两篇文章,将华为与Skycom在伊朗的美国相关业务往来联系起来。第一篇文章发表于2012年12月,报道了Skycom向伊朗最大的电信设备制造商出售美国制造的计算机设备,从而违反美国制裁。该文章报道华为和Skycom有“密切联系”,华为称Skycom是其在伊朗的“主要本地合作伙伴”之一。第二篇文章是2013年1月发布的,报道显示华为与Skycom之间存在各种联系,包括孟女士2008年2月至2009年4月在Skycom董事会任职,2007年她曾担任一家华为控股子公司的秘书,而该子公司持有Skycom公司 100%的股份。


When HSBC then made inquiries of Huawei about the reports in the Reuters articles, various Huawei representatives denied the substance of the reported allegations.  Ms. Meng requested an in-person meeting with a senior HSBC executive responsible for banking operations in Asia, and such a meeting took place on August 22, 2013 in the back room of a restaurant in Hong Kong.  Ms. Meng spoke in Chinese, and an interpreter translated into English for the benefit of the HSBC executive.  Ms. Meng also showed a PowerPoint presentation written in Chinese, and some time after the meeting provided HSBC with an English translation.


汇丰银行随后就路透社文章中的报道询问华为时,华为多名代表否认了报道中指控的实质内容。孟女士要求与汇丰银行负责亚洲银行业务的一名高管亲自会面,此次会面2013年8月22日在香港一家餐馆的里屋中进行。孟女士用中文交谈,一位译员为汇丰银行高管提供英文翻译。孟女士还展示了一篇用中文写的PowerPoint的演示文稿,会议结束不久后,又为汇丰银行高管提供了英文翻译。


In the meeting, Ms. Meng told the HSBC executive that Huawei’s operations in Iran complied strictly with applicable laws and US sanctions.  She said that Huawei’s relationship with Skycom was one of normal business cooperation in which Huawei required Skycom to make commitments to observe all applicable laws, regulations, and export control requirements.  Ms. Meng said that Huawei was once a shareholder in Skycom, and she herself was once a member of Skycom’s board of directors, because at that time these measures were necessary for managing Skycom as a business partner and for strengthening and monitoring its trade compliance.  However, these measures later became unnecessary to ensure compliance, and Huawei sold all its shares in Skycom, and Ms. Meng resigned from Skycom’s board.  Ms. Meng said that Huawei did business in Iran, but did so through its local subsidiary, and that Huawei’s subsidiaries in countries such as Iran would not transact business with HSBC.


孟女士在会上告诉汇丰高管,华为在伊朗的业务严格遵守适用法律和美国制裁,并表示华为与Skycom的关系是一种正常的业务合作关系,华为要求Skycom承诺遵守所有适用的法律、法规和出口管制要求。孟女士说,华为曾经是Skycom的股东,她本人也曾是Skycom董事会成员,因为在那时,这些措施对于将Skycom作为业务合作伙伴进行管理以及加强和监督其贸易合规性是有必要的。但是,后来这些措施在确保合规性上变得不必要了,华为出售了其在Skycom的所有股份,孟女士也辞去了在Skycom董事会的职务。孟女士表示,华为在伊朗有业务,但却是通过其在当地子公司进行的,华为在伊朗等国的子公司不会与汇丰银行进行交易。


The HSBC global risk committee met in London on March 31, 2014 to discuss “reputational and regulatory concerns” regarding Huawei, and decided to retain Huawei’s business.  In reaching that decision, the committee relied on the assurances provided by Ms. Meng at the August 2013 meeting.  About a month after the committee’s decision, HSBC sent its letter describing terms for the proposed $900 million credit facility.  And about a year after that, HSBC participated with other international banks in a $1.5 billion syndicated loan to Huawei.


汇丰银行全球风险委员会于2014年3月31日在伦敦召开会议,讨论有关华为的“声誉和监管问题”,并决定保留华为的业务。在作出该决定时,该委员会信赖孟女士在2013年8月会议上所作的保证。在该委员会作出决定后一个月左右,汇丰银行发信描述了拟议的9亿美元信贷安排的条款,大约一年后,汇丰银行与其他国际银行一起向华为提供了15亿美元的银团贷款。


Although Huawei had sold its shareholding in Skycom some years before the August 2013 meeting, and Ms. Meng had resigned from Skycom’s board, Huawei in reality continued to control Skycom and its banking and business operations in Iran.  Skycom employees had Huawei email addresses and badges, and some used Huawei stationery.  Skycom’s directors, and the signatories to its bank accounts, were Huawei employees.  The company that had purchased Huawei’s shareholding in Skycom did so with financing from Huawei, and its banking and business operations were under Huawei’s control.


虽然在2013年8月会议召开的前几年,华为已经出售了其在Skycom的股份,且孟女士也辞去了Skycom董事会的职务,但实际上华为还在继续管控Skycom及其在伊朗的银行业务和商业运营。Skycom的员工拥有华为的电子邮件地址和徽章,有些还使用华为文具。Skycom的主管和银行账户的签字人都是华为员工。Skycom收购了华为在Skycom持有的股权,这是通过从华为融资实现的,其银行业务和商业运营也在华为的管控之下。


Huawei’s true relationship to Skycom is said to have been information that was material to HSBC’s decision whether to continue to retain Huawei as a client.  False assurances by Ms. Meng at the August 2013 meeting in Hong Kong, misrepresenting the actual relationship, are said to have put HSBC at risk of fines and penalties for violating the DPA and for new violations of the US sanctions. Those misrepresentations are also said to have exposed HSBC to both economic and reputational risk.



据说华为与Skycom的真正关系这一信息对汇丰银行决定是否继续将华为视为客户至关重要。据说,在2013年8月的香港会议上,孟女士的虚假保证歪曲了真正的关系,使得汇丰银行违反了DPA,还违反了美国制裁,面临罚款和惩罚的风险。据说,这些不实陈述也使汇丰银行面临经济和声誉损失风险。


Before turning to the legal principles that apply, I emphasize once again that the allegations found in the ROC and SROC that I have just outlined are unproven.  They are nonetheless to be taken at face value for the purpose of assessing whether the double criminality requirement is met.


在谈适用法律原则之前,我再次强调,我刚才概述的ROC和SROC中的指控是未经证实的。但为了评估是否符合双重犯罪的标准,还是会从表面上考量这些指控。


THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK

法律框架


The double criminality principle prevents extradition to another state for prosecution where, in a reversed situation, the requested state would not have made an extradition request.  Internationally, the principle is recognised as central to extradition law:  Canada (Justice) v. Fischbacher, 2009 SCC 46 at para. 26.  The principle derives from the foundational principle of reciprocity, by which states are not required to extradite a person to a foreign jurisdiction for conduct that does not amount to a criminal offence in the requested state: M.M. v. United States of America, 2015 SCC 62 at para. 207.


双重犯罪原则妨碍引渡到另一个国家进行起诉,而在相反的情况下,被请求国不会提出引渡请求。在国际上,这一原则被认为是引渡法的核心:“加拿大(司法部)诉菲施巴赫尔”案2009 年SCC46第26段。这一原则源自互惠的基本原则,根据该原则,如果在被请求国不构成刑事犯罪,就不要求该国将罪犯引渡至外国管辖区:“M.M.诉美利坚合众国”案2015年SCC62第207段。


Canada and most other jurisdictions internationally have opted to implement the double criminality principle through the conduct-based approach that asks whether the conduct in the foreign jurisdiction could amount to an offence under domestic law: Fischbacher at para. 29.  The alternative offence-based approach, expressly rejected in Canada, looks for a match between the elements of the foreign offence and those of an equivalent Canadian offence.  Because Canada has rejected that approach in favour of the conduct-based approach, it is not necessary that the foreign offence have an exactly corresponding Canadian offence identified in the Minister’s authority to proceed.  It is the “essence of the offence” that is important: Fischbacher at paras. 28-29.


加拿大和大多数其他国际管辖区倾向于通过基于行为的方法来实施双重犯罪原则,该方法询问外国法域内该行为是否可以构成国内法下的犯罪:“加拿大(司法部)诉菲施巴赫尔”案第29款。加拿大明确拒绝基于犯罪的替代方法,该方法寻求外国犯罪的要素与加拿大同等犯罪的要素之间的匹配。由于加拿大拒绝了这种方法而赞成基于行为的方法,因此外国犯罪不一定要有恰好对应的且部长负责的诉讼当局认定的加拿大犯罪:“罪行的本质”是关键:“加拿大(司法部)诉菲施巴赫尔”案第28-29段。


Paragraphs 3(1)(b) and 29(1)(a) of the Extradition Act express the double criminality requirement that applies in a committal hearing where a person is sought for prosecution (as distinct from sentencing):


3 (1) A person may be extradited from Canada in accordance with this Act and a relevant extradition agreement on the request of an extradition partner for the purpose of prosecuting the person . . . if

. . .


(b) the conduct of the person, had it occurred in Canada, would have constituted an offence [required maximum sentences omitted].


29 (1)   A judge shall order the committal of the person into custody to await surrender if


(a)in the case of a person sought for prosecution, there is evidence admissible under this Act of conduct that, had it occurred in Canada, would justify committal for trial in Canada on the offence set out in the authority to proceed . . .


《引渡法》第3(1)(b)和29(1)(a) 款规定了适用于被要求起诉的人(不同于判刑)的交付听证的双重犯罪要求:


3 (1) 根据本法和有关引渡协定,应引渡伙伴的请求,可将某人引渡出加拿大,以便起诉此人。如果

. . .


(b) 如果此人的行为发生在加拿大,将构成犯罪[省略规定的最高刑罚]。


29 (1)  如有以下情况,法官须下令将该人交付羁押,以等候移交

(a)就被要求起诉的人而言,根据本行为法,有可采纳的证据,如果发生在加拿大,则有正当理由在加拿大就法院规定的罪行交付审判。


As mentioned earlier, the Minister has identified fraud as the offence reflecting the alleged conduct. The double criminality question in the committal hearing is therefore whether Ms. Meng’s alleged conduct, had it occurred in Canada, would have amounted to fraud contrary to s. 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.


如前所述,司法部长已将欺诈认定为反映所指控行为的罪行。因此,交付听证会中的双重犯罪问题是,如果孟女士涉嫌的行为发生在加拿大,是否构成违反《刑法》第380(1)(a)条的欺诈行为。


Section 380(1)(a) reads as follows:

380 (1) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service,

(a)is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding fourteen years, where the subject-matter of the offence is a testamentary instrument or the value of the subject-matter of the offence exceeds five thousand dollars . . . .


第380(1)(a)条内容如下:

380(1)任何人以欺骗、谎言或其他欺诈手段,无论是否为本法所指的虚假借口,骗取公众或任何人(无论是否查明)的任何财产、金钱或有价证券或任何服务:

(a) 如罪行的标的物是遗嘱文书或标的物价值超逾5000元,即属可公诉罪行,可处不超逾14年的监禁。


Fraud in Canada thus requires dishonest conduct with a corresponding deprivation.  McLachlin J. in R. v. Zlatic, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 29 at 43 neatly described the actus reus and mens rea of this two-part offence as follows:


The elements of the offence of fraud are discussed in a general fashion in R. v. Théroux, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 5, released simultaneously.  For the purposes of this case, it suffices to state that the actus reus of fraud will be established by proof of:


1.  the prohibited act, be it an act of deceit, a falsehood or some other fraudulent means; and


2.  deprivation caused by the prohibited act, which may consist in actual loss or the placing of the victim’s pecuniary interests at risk.


Correspondingly, the mens rea of fraud is established by proof of:

1.  subjective knowledge of the prohibited act; and


2.  subjective knowledge that the prohibited act could have as a consequence the deprivation of another (which deprivation may consist in knowledge that the victim’s pecuniary interests are put at risk).


Where the conduct and knowledge required by these definitions are established, the accused is guilty whether he actually intended the prohibited consequence or was reckless as to whether it would occur.


因此,在加拿大的欺诈行为要求对被起诉人作出相应的剥夺。McLachlin J.in R.v.Zlatic案([1993]2 S.C.R.29 ,43段)清楚地描述了这两部分犯罪的行为和犯罪原因,具体如下:

R.v.Théroux案([1993]2 S.C.R.5)对欺诈罪的构成要素进行了一般性的讨论,并同时发布。就本案而言,仅需说明通过以下证据证明欺诈行为成立:

(一)被禁行为是欺骗、谎言或者其他欺诈手段;及

(二)因被禁行为造成的剥夺,其被禁行为可能造成实际损失或危及受害人的经济利益。


相应地,欺诈行为的范围是通过以下证据确定的:

1.对被禁行为的主观认识

2.主观上知道被禁行为可能导致另一人损失(这种损失包括知道会危及受害人的经济利益)。

凡这些定义所规定的行为和(主观)认识成立时,无论被告人实际上是否故意造成被禁后果,发生这种后果时是否为冲动引起,被告人都有罪。


The deprivation caused by the prohibited act need not be actual economic loss, but may consist of the potential for loss, meaning that the victim’s economic interests are imperilled:  R. v. Théroux, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 5 at 16.


被禁行为造成的损失不一定是实际经济损失,还可能包括潜在损失,这意味着受害人的经济利益受到威胁;详见R.v.Théroux案,[1993]2 S.C.R.5,16段。


ANALYSIS

分析

 

I will begin by explaining why I cannot accept the Attorney General’s first proposed basis for establishing double criminality, namely that deprivation may be established in this case without reliance on US sanctions.


首先,我将解释为何我不能接受总检察长提出的确立双重犯罪的第一个依据,即在本案中可以确立(对被告人的)剥夺,而不用依赖美国的制裁。


Can Double Criminality Be Established Without Reliance on the US Sanctions?


在不依赖美国制裁的情况下能否确立双重犯罪?


There are many situations where a false statement by a borrower puts the creditor at risk even though the proceeds of the loan are repaid without incident.  Even with no actual loss resulting, fraud is made out as the creditor is found to be at some risk of loss while the loan is outstanding.  See, for example, R. v. Abramson, [1983] B.C.J. No. 1305 (B.C.C.A.), R. v. Fast, 2014 SKQB 84, and R. v. MacMullen, 2014 ABQB 476.


在许多情况下,即使贷款的收益已顺利还清,借款人的虚假陈述会使债权人面临风险。即使没有造成实际损失,也属于构成欺诈,因为在贷款未偿期间,债权人有一定的损失风险,详见R.v.Abramson案([1983]B.C.J.No.1305(B.C.C.A.)),R.v.Fast案([2014]SKQB 84),R.v.MacMullen案([2014]ABQB 476)。


However, the false statement or misrepresentation must have been a material or meaningful one in the sense that it could give rise to a loss or risk of loss.  It is no fraud simply to lie, where the lie is unrelated to any potential loss or risk of loss to the deceived party.  The risk of loss must be real, and it must be integrally connected with the dishonest act or statement:  see R. v. Knowles (1979), 51 C.C.C. (2d) 237 (Ont. C.A.).  The risk cannot be merely theoretical:  R. v. Olson, 2017 BCSC 1637 at para. 68.


然而,虚假陈述或不实陈述必须是实质性的或有意义的,因为它可能导致损失

或损失风险。凡谎言与被欺骗方的任何潜在损失或损失风险无关,那么仅仅说谎就不属于欺诈。损失风险必须是真实的,且必须与欺骗的行为或陈述有完整联系:详见R.v.Knowles案((1979)51 C.C.C.(2d)237(Ont.C.A.))。风险不能仅仅是假设的:详见R.v.Olson案(2017)[BCSC ]1637,68段。


In R. v. Riesberry, 2015 SCC 65, Cromwell J., writing for the Court, stated that proof of fraud does not always depend on showing reliance by a victim on the fraudulent conduct or that the victim was induced to act to their detriment.  However, there must be proof of a sufficient causal connection between the fraudulent act and the victim’s risk of deprivation, which cannot be too remote:  Riesberry at paras. 17, 26-28.


克伦威尔在R.v.Riesberry案(2015 SCC 65)为本法院撰写的书面文件中指出,欺诈的证据并不总是取决于被害人对欺诈行为的依赖程度,或者被害人是被诱使作出损害其利益的行为。但必须有证据证明欺诈行为与被害人的损失风险之间有充分的因果关系,这种关系不能不紧密:详见Riesberry案17、26-28段。


As noted earlier, the ROC and SROC are replete with references to US sanctions-related risks to HSBC arising from Ms. Meng’s misrepresentation of the relationship between Huawei and Skycom, including potential criminal or civil liability, financial penalties, or damage to HSBC’s reputation because of its association with a sanctions-violating client.


如前所述,ROC和SROC都提到了因孟女士对华为和Skycom关系的虚假陈述给汇丰带来了受美国制裁的相关风险,包括潜在的刑事或民事责任、经济处罚,或由于汇丰与违反制裁规定的客户合作导致汇丰声誉受损。


The Attorney General submits that the ROC and SROC also describe potential loss or risk of loss to HSBC unrelated to US sanctions, but I cannot agree.


总检察长认为,ROC和SROC也描述了给汇丰带来与美国制裁无关的潜在损失或风险,但我对此不同意。


The Attorney General appears to submit that economic or reputational risk to HSBC arose from the simple fact that Ms. Meng misrepresented Huawei’s relationship with Skycom in order to maintain the financing relationship, because the misrepresentation deprived HSBC of the ability to make an informed decision about dealing with Huawei. While such may be so, for there to have been a deprivation it nonetheless remains necessary for the evidence to show a causal link between the misrepresentation and the information HSBC needed to make a decision, whether or not HSBC actually relied on that information.  It is difficult to discern such a link, in the ROC and the SROC, that does not rely on the effects of US sanctions.


总检察长似乎认为,汇丰面临经济损失风险或声誉受损风险的原因很简单,孟女士为了维持融资关系而虚假陈述了华为与Skycom的关系,因为这种虚假陈述剥夺了汇丰在处理华为合作事宜时作出知情决定的能力。虽然可能如此,存在剥夺,但仍有必要提供证据,证明虚假陈述与汇丰作出决定所需的信息之间存在因果关系,无论汇丰实际是否依赖该信息。在ROC和SROC中,很难辨别这种并不取决于美国制裁效果的关系。


The Attorney General points to but two references in the ROC and the SROC as evidence of potential loss unrelated to US sanctions.


总检察长在ROC和SROC中,只提及两处可证明与美国制裁无关的潜在损失的证据。


The first reference appears in the ROC, para. 36:

36.   HSBC Witness A is further expected to testify that, had Huawei not actually sold Skycom, such a fact would have been “material” to HSBC’s decision whether to end the client relationship with Huawei in light of the additional risks the relationship would have posed.


在ROC,第36段第一次提及:

36.汇丰证人A预计将进一步证明,如果华为实际没有出售Skycom,鉴于该关系可能带来的额外风险,这一事实将对汇丰决定是否终止与华为的客户关系“至关重要”。


Read in isolation, this conclusory statement expected of Witness A may appear capable of bearing the interpretation the Attorney General would give it, addressing “risks” in broad and general terms raised by a borrower’s false statement about whether it had sold and disassociated itself from a smaller company.  However, the ROC as a whole, and the immediate context in which para. 36 appears, make clear that the conclusion Witness A would express is integrally related to US sanctions.  Witness A’s anticipated evidence is also described in para. 35, a paragraph which relates HSBC’s concerns about Huawei’s relationship to Skycom directly to claims that Skycom had “attempted to sell embargoed HP computer equipment into Iran”. 


在单独阅读时,预计证人A的结论性陈述可能能经受总检察长对此的解释,以宽泛及笼统的措词,解释借款人就其是否已出售这家较小公司或与这家公司划清界限而作出的虚假陈述所引致的“风险”。然而,就整体而言,以及第36段所指的直接背景而言,明确证人A将要表达的结论与美国制裁有完整的联系。证人A的预期证据也在第35段中列出,此段把汇丰担忧华为和Skycom的关系直接与“Skycom试图向伊朗出售禁运的惠普电脑设备”的说法联系在一起。


I therefore do not read para. 36 of the ROC as offering a basis unrelated to US sanctions by which HSBC was put at risk by Ms. Meng’s alleged misrepresentations.


因此,我不认为ROC 第36段通过说明孟女士涉嫌的虚假陈述致使汇丰面临风险,提供了与美国制裁无关的风险依据。


The Attorney General’s second reference to evidence of potential loss unrelated to US sanctions appears in para. 8 of the SROC.  That paragraph addresses in somewhat more detail the type of evidence described in the ROC, para. 36, expected to be given by a different witness.  My comments about that paragraph apply similarly.


总检察长在SROC第8段第二次提到与美国制裁无关的潜在损失证据。该段更详细地阐述了ROC第36段所述的证据类型,我对那一段的评论同样适用于这一段。


To the extent that the Attorney General appears to argue further that reputational risk could arise from the simple fact of economic dealings with Iran, regardless of potential sanctions-related consequences of those dealings, I find no basis for such a conclusion in the ROC or the SROC.


总检察长似乎进一步辩称,先不管这些交易带来与制裁有关的后果,与伊朗进行经济交易的这一简单事实就说明了有可能会给(汇丰)带来声誉受损风险;我在ROC 或SROC中找不到支撑这种结论的依据。


Without reference to the US sanctions, the ROC and the SROC do not set out a causal basis (beyond the theoretical or speculative) for economic or reputational risk to HSBC because of Ms. Meng’s alleged misrepresentations.


在未提及美国制裁措施的情况下,ROC和SROC没有列出因孟女士涉嫌虚假陈述给汇丰带来经济损失或声誉受损风险的因果论据(超出理论或推测)。


CONCLUSION

结论


On the question of law posed, I conclude that, as a matter of law, the double criminality requirement for extradition is capable of being met in this case.  The effects of the US sanctions may properly play a role in the double criminality analysis as part of the background or context against which the alleged conduct is examined.


就法律问题而言,我的结论是引渡的双重犯罪要求作为一个法律问题在本案中是可以满足的,美国制裁的效果可以适当地在双重犯罪分析中发挥作用,当做审查指控行为的一部分背景。


Ms. Meng’s application is therefore dismissed.


因此,孟女士的申请被驳回。


I make no determination of the larger question under s. 29(1)(a) of the Act of whether there is evidence admissible under the Act that the alleged conduct would justify Ms. Meng’s committal for trial in Canada on the offence of fraud under s. 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.  This question will be determined at a later stage in the proceedings.


我对法案第29(1)(a)条下更大的问题没有作出决定,即根据法案是否有可采纳的证据表明,所指控的行为将证明孟女士按加拿大《刑法》第380(1)(a)条欺诈罪的规定接受审判是正当的。此问题将在审判诉讼的后期阶段敲定。(来源:超律志)


-END-


地址:上海市浦东新区浦东南路256号华夏银行大厦1201室

邮编:200120

总机:+86 21 5093 2722、+86 21 5093 3665

传真:+86 21 5093 3871

邮箱:info@weiislaw.com




微信公众号
移动网站

联系我们

新闻中心