Who is the big loser? The Meng Wanzhou case is finally settled, and many people will ask, who is the big loser? The United States failed to coerce China, let go of the hostages, and lost face in front of many allies. It must be a loser.

Who is the big loser? The Meng Wanzhou case is finally settled, and many people will ask, who is the big loser? The United States failed to coerce China, let go of the hostages, and lost face in front of many allies. It must be a loser.

The hostages are on the enemy’s side, and China has thrown a rat-fighting weapon, and has endured more than two years of suffering. It cannot be said to be a winner. But the biggest loser is definitely Canada, because it lost the rule of law.

Why would you ask? First of all, we must talk about the basic legal basis for the extradition of criminals. Regardless of international law or the model provisions on the transfer of suspects enacted by the United Nations resolution in 1990, the most important conditions for successful legal extradition are two: 1. Regardless of the charges, the background of the accused, or the facts of the crime, no political factors may be involved; 2. , The crime involved must also be a serious crime of extradition to the local area.

The US sanctions on Iran are undoubtedly political actions. The accusation of others for breaching sanctions is undeniably political. The most basic prerequisites are not met, how can the extradition procedure be initiated? Equally important, as listed in Annex A of the so-called deferred prosecution agreement, it only accuses Meng Wanzhou of concealing part of the facts; but the concealment of facts alone did not cause losses, and it does not constitute a crime of fraud anywhere, including Canada and the United States. Since it is not a crime and political factors are involved, what about extradition?

Regardless of factual disputes or Meng Wanzhou’s reasons for defense, for the two points mentioned above, no country that respects the rule of law will accept extradition applications. Canada disregards internationally recognized legal principles and its own legal requirements, allowing it to be manipulated by the United States as its political tool. What else does it talk about the rule of law? How can Canada convince international investors that their judicial system will not be subject to political interference? In this battle, Canada really lost badly!

Written by: Ronnie Tong
Member of the Hong Kong Executive Council

Ronny Tong Ka-wah, SC is a Hong Kong Senior Counsel and politician. He is a current non-official member of the Executive Council of Hong Kong.

(Above Chinese to English Translation via Google Translate)

誰是大輸家？

孟晚舟一案總算塵埃落定，盤點得失，不少人都會問，誰是大輸家？美國脅迫中國不遂，放走人質，在眾多盟友前丟盡了臉，肯定是輸家。人質在敵方，中國投鼠忌器，忍氣吞聲捱了兩年多的苦，不可以說是贏家。但最大的輸家肯定是加拿大，因為輸了法治。

你會問何出此言？這首先要說到引渡罪犯的基本法律基礎。無論從國際法或一九九○年聯合國通過決議制定之移交疑犯模範條文來看，成功合法引渡最重要的條件有二：一、無論控罪、被告背景或犯罪事實均不可涉及任何政治因素；二、所涉罪行必須同時是引渡當地之嚴重罪行。

美國制裁伊朗，毋庸置疑是政治行為。指控他人破壞制裁，亦無可否認是政治行為。最基本的首要條件也不符合，怎可啓動引渡程序？同樣重要者，正如所謂延期起訴協議附件A所羅列，說的只是指控孟晚舟隱瞞部分事實；但單是隱瞞事實，沒有導致損失，在任何地方，包括加拿大和美國均不構成欺詐罪。既然不是罪行，又涉及政治因素，談什麼引渡？

姑不談事實的爭拗或孟晚舟的答辯理由，單是以上所說兩點，任何一個尊重法治的國家也不會受理引渡申請。加拿大罔顧國際公認的法律原則和本身法例要求，容許被美國操縱作其政治工具，還談什麼法治？今後加拿大如何說服國際投資者，他們的司法系統不會受政治干預？這一仗，加拿大真的輸得慘重！

撰文 : 湯家驊
行政會議議員