cmknight Post time: 2019-2-12 08:51
According to the Bi-lateral Extradition Treaty:
[...]provided these offenses are punishable by the laws of both Contracting Parties by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year.
It is my understanding though, that the offense itself does not need to take place in (or target) both countries.
The question in this case, I believe, is that if Canada had sanctions simlar to USA (against any entity, by whatever mechanism applies to that in Canada), would defrauding Canadian institutions to break those sanctions constitute an offense punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year.
I'd say, that it is not so much about having specific laws about specific sanctions place in both countries, but a greater principle of "what if this happened on my lawn?"
In USA the sanctions are often implemented by executive order of the president - I don't know what process Canada has (Order in Council?), but these are usually not something written into existing established laws anyway, like more mundane offenses are.
The judge can have the extradition dropped due to the sanctions not being recognized in Canada, OR he could tell the United States that the only way she can be extradited is if the US drops the part pertaining to the American Sanctions on Iran.
Conspiracy to defraud instutitions is the alleged offense, but the severity of that conspiracy (which I think would affect the term of possible imprisonment) cannot really be examined without keeping the Iran sanctions in the picture.
cmknight Post time: 2019-2-12 08:18
I have always conceded that she may get off. Stranger things have happened, but the possibility is ...
You are obviously confusing pricing policy with 'fraud', and your example is based on fantasy and not facts.
A tiered pricing policy exists in all countries where the average income level is below the world average. China's per capita income is still low, and hence it has been using price differentials for a long time to ensure that basic necessities are within reach of every citizen.
In contrast, luxury items are priced much higher and this applies to both domestic high-income consumers or Westerners. I remember during the CR there were "Friendship stores" where rarer merchandise earmarked for consumption by high-income consumers which at that time used to be foreigners. Nowadays many foreigners -- including Westerners -- are poorer than middle-class Chinese and so such 'friendship stores' have long disappeared. This shows your understanding of China is too scanty for your own good.
The price differential whenever it existed was done openly and hence one would be too loose-mouthed to call everything not to his liking "fraud." Fraud is when you don't have the intention to fulfill your promise and it is far more prevalent in places influenced by Western culture.
Unlike America where even the president has been noted by the country's leading newspaper (NYTimes) to have lied to the public 846 times as of two weeks ago, China is a civilized nation where such disgraceful behavior is viewed with utter disdain.
That's why China trade is so lucrative for all players involved because there is far fewer cases of fraud conducted by Chinese merchants, and the efficiency of doing business with Chinese traders translates into high trade volumes.
In fact, for thousands of years Chinese traders in Southeast Asia have had such excellent reputation for their probity and fairness in conducting their business that oral contracts were widely accepted in lieu of written ones, and it was only after Westerners came to East Asia that written contracts had to be used, reflecting the fact that European traders couldn't be trusted on their spoken words alone.
I suggest you seriously take some time to study Chinese history and culture, because I sense that, unlike Peter Navarro, you can still be salvaged from the Ocean of Ignorance concerning matters Chinese.
cmknight Post time: 2019-2-12 08:21
ummm ... Since when do the police notify a suspect that there is a warrant out for their arrest? ...
So you've been arrested enough number of times to know that they don't let you know ahead of time that they are looking for you.
In this case it was sufficient that Donald Trump knew there was a warrant out for Meng's arrest, and he knew it before August 22 because the Crime Boas and his mobsters had to be in connivance to approve such a move ahead of the trade talks.
wchao37 Post time: 2019-2-12 17:08
So you've been arrested enough number of times to know that they don't let you know ahead of time ...
that they are looking for you.
Oh my, that should be common sense.
Warrants, both for arrest or for searching premises, have the specific purpose of giving authorities the legal right to do what is warranted, because the suspect is not expected to walk to the police and hand themselves or whatever evidence they posses in voluntarily.
Would the Chinese police kindly let me (or you) know in advance, if they were coming for us? No.