You are here
Home > News > Meng Wanzhou extradition case of the latest news

Meng Wanzhou extradition case of the latest news

Recently, the case of Meng Wanzhou’s extradition was finally concluded in the British Columbia High Court. However, the judge did not immediately give the verdict, but set the date of the verdict to be announced on October 21.

Meng Wanzhou extradition case of the latest news




After all the trials were over, Huawei’s Canadian company issued a statement stating: “Huawei has always believed that Ms. Meng is innocent. We have always believed in the Canadian judicial system. Huawei has always supported Ms. Meng’s pursuit of justice and freedom, and we still insist today. This position.”

The case of Meng Wanzhou’s extradition has been tried for two years, so the verdict on this incident has also attracted more and more people’s attention. In addition, because of the relationship between China and the United States, many people believe that the outcome of this case may also be the result of the Sino-US game.

As for the Meng Wanzhou case, Hua Chunying, the spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of our country, also repeatedly emphasized before the trial that the Meng Wanzhou incident was an out-and-out political incident. Because the fact that the US “frauded” Ms. Meng Wanzhou was maliciously fabricated, because the Chinese side had obtained the documents provided by HSBC, which the United States accused of being “fraud”, to prove that Ms. Meng Wanzhou was not fraudulent.

According to the statement issued by Huawei, during this trial, Meng Wanzhou’s defense lawyer made a statement to the court on four branches of procedural abuse, namely, illegal detention, lack of evidence and mischaracterization, political drive, and violation of international law. Customary law also emphasizes that Meng Wanzhou’s charter rights have also been violated due to the abuse of Canadian judicial procedures, so the only remedy is to stop extradition.

But for the defense lawyer’s statement, the Canadian court considered it “failed in fact and law” and did not consider the “false statement” said by the defense lawyer to be a reasonable fact. However, Meng Wanzhou’s defense lawyer has the upper hand in terms of procedural abuse related branches, and it is very likely that Meng Wanzhou’s freedom will be regained by this.



In fact, when we sort out the timeline of Meng Wanzhou’s case, we will find that this is just a political farce led by the United States and assisted by Canada. It was originally intended to curb the development of Chinese companies in the United States.

Because in November 2018, when Meng Wanzhou was arrested by Canadian customs officers on suspicion of fraud, he completely disregarded the reasonable demands of the Chinese side and illegally detained Meng Wanzhou. Later, when Meng Wanzhou’s defense attorney provided enough evidence to show that Ms. Meng Wanzhou was not “susceptible of fraud,” the Canadian court even refused to accept it.

Even when some Canadian judges had many loopholes in the testimony of the United States, Canadian judges continued to postpone the trial of Meng Wanzhou’s case, even attempting to extradite him to the United States. From the above behaviors, we can see that the nature of Meng Wanzhou’s case is extraordinary, and it also responds to the old Chinese saying “If you want to add a crime, there is nothing wrong with it.”




Although Ms. Meng Wanzhou is still illegally detained by Canada, the 1.4 billion compatriots behind her and the powerful motherland will not let it go! As the spokesperson’s female representative Hua Chunying emphasized: “We urge the United States to immediately revoke the arrest warrant and extradition request for Ms. Meng Wanzhou. The Canadian side immediately corrects the mistake, releases Ms. Meng Wanzhou as soon as possible and allows her to return to China safely. ”

One day, the US conspiracy will eventually surface. I believe that the final decision of Meng Wanzhou in October will definitely be the result that China expects.

Leave a Reply