美国司法部报道孟晚舟签订暂缓起诉协议新闻翻译

译文说明:

孟晚舟女士与美国司法部达成延迟起诉协议(Deferred Prosecuation Agreement),于加拿大释放,并已回到祖国的怀抱。美国司法部就该事件发布新闻文章,文章内容说明孟晚舟女士签订协议的主要义务是承认部分其所作陈述不实,但并不构成认罪,并且美国司法部同意暂缓起诉,并立即终止加拿大的引渡程序。本译文仅供参考,如有纰漏或错误敬请指证。 

译文文本: 

华为首席财务官孟晚舟承认误导国际金融机构 孟晚舟签订延期起诉协议以解决欺诈指控 

华为技术有限公司首席财务官孟晚舟,49岁,来自中华人民共和国,今天在布鲁克林的联邦地区法院出庭,签订了一份延期起诉协议(DPA),并因被指控串谋实施银行欺诈和串谋实施电信欺诈、银行欺诈和电信欺诈而被提审。 

纽约东区美国代理检察官Nicole Boeckmann称:“在签订延期起诉协议(DPA)时,孟晚舟已经为她在实施欺骗一家国际金融机构的计划中所扮演的主要角色承担责任。”孟晚舟在事实陈述中的承认证实,在担任华为首席财务官期间,她就华为在伊朗的业务运营向一家金融机构的高管作出了多项重大失实陈述,以努力维护华为与该金融机构的银行关系。孟晚舟所隐瞒的关于华为在伊朗业务的真相,本该对金融机构决定是否继续保持与华为的银行关系起重要作用。孟晚舟的承认证实了这一起金融诈骗诉讼中政府指控的关键——即孟晚舟以及她下属的华为员工通谋并共同就华为在伊朗开展业务方面欺骗了国际金融机构、美国政府以及公众。 

司法部国家安全司代理助理总检察长Mark J. Lesko称:“这项延期起诉协议将使加拿大当前进行的引渡程序终止,否则该程序可能会持续数月,甚至数年。我们非常感谢加拿大司法部在这次引渡中的敬业工作,以及对法治的坚定遵守。” 

司法部刑事司的助理司法部长Kenneth A. Polite Jr.称:“金融机构是我们维护美国金融系统安全的第一道防线,这就是为什么法律要求利用美国金融系统的公司向金融机构提供有关其业务运营的真实信息。华为技术有限公司首席财务官孟晚舟今天承认,她没有说出关于华为在伊朗业务的真相,导致金融机构在违反美国法律的情况下继续与华为合作。我们的起诉团队继续对华为的审判做准备,期待在法庭上与该公司的对抗中胜诉。” 

联邦调查局反间谍部门的助理局长Alan E. Kohler Jr.称:“孟晚舟的承认证明了存在一种违反美国法律的持续欺诈模式。当有迹象表明在美国执业的公司的行为藐视我们的法律时,联邦调查局将继续积极调查。” 

欺诈金融机构的计划 

根据相关法律文件,以及孟晚舟在延期起诉协议中的事实陈述,星通技术有限公司(Skycom Tech.Ltd.Ltd.,下称星通)是一家主要在伊朗经营的香港公司。2007年2月,星通技术有限公司是由华盈公司(Hua Ying Management,下称华盈)全资拥有,华盈则是华为技术有限公司(Huawei Technologies Co.,下称华为)的子公司。2007年11月,华盈将其在星通公司的股份转让给华为控制的另一实体——Canicula控股公司(Canicula Holdings下称Canicula)。华盈将其持有的星通公司股份转让给Canicula期间,孟晚舟是华盈公司的公司秘书。 

2008年2月,华为将星通公司的所有权从华盈转移给Canicula后,孟晚舟加入了星通公司的董事会,且该董事会由华为员工组成。她在董事会任职至2009年4月。孟晚舟离开星通公司董事会后,星通公司的董事会成员仍然是华为员工,Canicula继续拥有星通公司,且Canicula继续受华为控制。2012年8月,华为在以英文书写的公司文件中,将星通列入”其他华为子公司”名单。 

2010年至2014年期间,华为控制了星通在伊朗的业务运营,且星通由华为控制的公司实体拥有。星通的重大业务决策都由华为做出。此外,星通的国家经理——公司内主管某国业务的职位,是一名华为员工。星通雇用的个体员工则表示他们在为华为工作。 

在同一时期,华为员工与一家英国人事公司合作,为星通提供在伊朗的工程师,以此支持星通与伊朗电信服务提供商的合作。华为员工代表星通进行谈判以及签订合同。为了支付这些承包商的费用,华为从星通在亚洲地区的银行账户中拨款,包括星通在一家跨国金融机构(下称金融机构1)的账户,以一系列大约80笔的付款向该英国人事公司支付了至少750万美元。这些交易款项以美元计价,并通过美国进行结算。 

2012年12月和2013年1月,包括路透社在内的多家新闻机构报道,星通主动在伊朗销售由一家美国计算机设备制造商生产的“禁运”设备,此举涉嫌违反美国出口管制法,并且华为与星通的关系密切。2012年12月,华为在发表在路透社的一份声明中声称星通是其在伊朗的 “主要当地合作伙伴”之一。路透社报道称,华为进一步表示,“华为在伊朗的业务完全符合所有适用的法律和法规,包括联合国、美国和欧盟的法律和法规,我们公司一直在履行和严格遵守这一承诺。此外,我们也要求我们的合作伙伴遵循同样的承诺,严格遵守相关的法律和法规”。 

2013年1月,路透社后续的一篇文章报道称,孟晚舟在2008年2月至2009年4月期间担任星通的董事会成员,并指证了星通的董事与华为其他方面的联系。该文章还引用了华为的以下声明:“华为和星通之间的关系是正常的商业合作。华为已建立了符合行业最佳实践的贸易合规体系,我们在伊朗的业务完全符合所有适用的法律和法规,包括联合国的法律和法规。我们也要求我们的合作伙伴,例如星通,做出同样的承诺”。这一说法是不正确的,因为华为实际经营和控制着星通;因此星通不是华为的商业 “伙伴”。 

这些文章发表后,金融机构1和其他向华为提供包括美元清算在内的国际银行服务的全球金融机构(以下统称 “金融机构”),针对上述媒体的报道向华为进行了询问。2013年初,华为员工向金融机构表示,星通只是华为在伊朗的一个当地商业伙伴,且星通没有利用其在金融机构的账户进行与伊朗有关的交易。 

为了解决新闻报道中的指控,华为要求与金融机构1的一名高级雇员进行当面会谈。2013年8月22日,双方在香港进行会谈,当时孟晚舟与金融机构1负责亚太地区业务的一名高管会面。会议期间,孟晚舟展示了一份用中文写成的PowerPoint演示文稿,并由一名口译员翻译成英文。孟晚舟表示,使用口译员是为了让自己的语言表达更精确。 

在孟晚舟的陈述中,她表示,除开其他方面,华为与星通的关系既是“正常的商业合作”,也是“正常且可控的商业合作”,她将星通描述为“合作伙伴”、“华为的商业伙伴”、“华为在伊朗合作的第三方”。这些陈述是不真实的,因为孟晚舟知道,星通不是华为的商业伙伴,也不是与华为合作的第三方;相反,华为控制着星通,而星通的员工实际上是华为的员工。对于金融机构1来说,本该有必要知道华为控制着星通这一信息。 

此外,孟晚舟表示,华为“曾经是星通的股东”,但已经“出售了其在星通的所有股份”。这些陈述是不真实的,因为正如孟晚舟所知,华为已将其股份 “出售 “给华为控制的一个实体。确切来说,华为将星通的股份从华为的一个子公司(华盈)转移到另一个由华为控制的实体(Canicula)。对于金融机构1来说,本该有必要知道星通是从一个受华为控制的实体转移到另一个仍受华为控制的实体。 

最后,孟晚舟表示,华为“在伊朗的运营严格遵守应适用的法律、法规和制裁”,而且“华为或与华为合作的任何第三方没有违反出口管制条例”。这些陈述是不真实的,因为华为对星通的运营导致了金融机构为华为在伊朗的业务提供被禁止的服务,包括银行服务,而华为却隐瞒了星通与华为的联系,这违反了美国财政部外国资产管控办公室的《伊朗贸易和制裁条例》(《联邦法规汇编》标题31第560部分)。此外,在2010年至2014年期间,华为使星通公司通过金融机构1进行了价值约1亿美元的交易,这些交易通过美国清算,其中至少有一些是在违反美国法律的情况下用于支持华为在伊朗的业务,包括为开展伊朗业务支付给来自英国人事公司的伊朗本地承包商的750万美元。 

孟晚舟在知道华为在路透社做出了关于星通的公开声明的情况下,在会谈期间或会谈之后的任何时间点,都没有对这些陈述做出任何修改和收回。此外,华为的财务主管也参加了8月的会谈,也没有纠正或修改孟晚舟的任何陈述。 

在孟晚舟与金融机构1会谈后不久,华为应金融机构1的要求准备了一份英文版本的PowerPoint演示文稿。后来,孟晚舟安排将该PowerPoint演示文稿的纸质版交付给她在2013年9月会见过的金融机构1的高管。英文版本的PowerPoint演示文稿中的表述与孟晚舟在会谈期间的表述密切相关。 

在会谈结束以及收到孟晚舟的PowerPoint演示文稿后,金融机构1决定继续与华为合作。其他金融机构也同样继续与华为保持各自的关系。 

延期起诉协议(DPA) 

根据延期起诉协议(DPA)的条款,孟晚舟同意保证一份四页的事实声明的准确性,其中详细说明了她向金融机构1所作的明知是虚假的陈述。孟晚舟还同意不再实施其他联邦、州或地方犯罪。如果孟晚舟违反协议,她将受到本案第三份补充起诉书中对她提出的所有指控的起诉。美国政府亦同意撤回其向加拿大司法部提出的将孟晚舟引渡到美国的请求。 

纽约东区的美国助理检察官Alexander A. Solomon、Julia Nestor、David K. Kessler、Sarah M. Evans、Meredith A. Arfa,刑事司洗钱和资产追回科的审判律师Laura Billings和Christian Nauvel,以及国家安全司反间谍和出口管制科的审判律师Thea D. R. Kendler、David Lim、R. Elizabeth Abraham正在起诉此案。纽约东区民事部门的美国助理检察官Brian Morris和Brendan King,美国驻巴黎大使馆的副主任John Riesenberg、随员Andrew Finkelman以及司法部国际事务办公室的前审判律师Margaret O’Malley都提供了宝贵的协助。 

原文文本: 

Huawei CFO Wanzhou Meng Admits to Misleading Global Financial Institution 

Meng Enters into Deferred Prosecution Agreement to Resolve Fraud Charges 

The Chief Financial Officer of Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., Wanzhou Meng, 49, of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), appeared today in federal district court in Brooklyn, entered into a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) and was arraigned on charges of conspiracy to commit bank fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud, bank fraud and wire fraud. 

“In entering into the deferred prosecution agreement, Meng has taken responsibility for her principal role in perpetrating a scheme to defraud a global financial institution,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Nicole Boeckmann for the Eastern District of New York. “Her admissions in the statement of facts confirm that, while acting as the Chief Financial Officer for Huawei, Meng made multiple material misrepresentations to a senior executive of a financial institution regarding Huawei’s business operations in Iran in an effort to preserve Huawei’s banking relationship with the financial institution. The truth about Huawei’s business in Iran, which Meng concealed, would have been important to the financial institution’s decision to continue its banking relationship with Huawei. Meng’s admissions confirm the crux of the government’s allegations in the prosecution of this financial fraud — that Meng and her fellow Huawei employees engaged in a concerted effort to deceive global financial institutions, the U.S. government and the public about Huawei’s activities in Iran.” 

“This Deferred Prosecution Agreement will lead to the end of the ongoing extradition proceedings in Canada, which otherwise could have continued for many months, if not years,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Mark J. Lesko for the Justice Department’s National Security Division. “We are enormously grateful to Canada’s Department of Justice for its dedicated work on this extradition and for its steadfast adherence to the rule of law.” 

“Financial institutions are our first line of defense in maintaining the safety and security of the U.S. financial system,” said Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite Jr. of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. “That is why the law requires that companies who avail themselves of the U.S. financial system provide financial institutions with truthful information about their business operations. Meng Wanzhou, CFO of Huawei Technologies, admitted today that she failed to tell the truth about Huawei’s operations in Iran, and as a result the financial institution continued to do business with Huawei in violation of U.S. law. Our prosecution team continues to prepare for trial against Huawei, and we look forward to proving our case against the company in court.” 

“Meng’s admissions are evidence of a consistent pattern of deception to violate U.S. law,” said Assistant Director Alan E. Kohler Jr. of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division. “The FBI will continue to aggressively investigate companies doing business in the United States when there are signs they behave with contempt for our laws.” 

The Scheme to Defraud Financial Institutions 

According to court documents, and as agreed to by Meng in the DPA’s statement of facts, Skycom Tech. Co. Ltd. (Skycom) was a Hong Kong company that primarily operated in Iran. As of February 2007, Skycom was wholly owned by a subsidiary of Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. (Huawei), Hua Ying Management (Hua Ying). In November 2007, Hua Ying transferred its shares of Skycom to another entity that Huawei controlled, Canicula Holdings (Canicula). At the time Hua Ying transferred its Skycom shares to Canicula, Meng was the Secretary of Hua Ying. 

In February 2008, after Huawei transferred ownership of Skycom from Hua Ying to Canicula, Meng joined Skycom’s Board of Directors, which was comprised of Huawei employees. She served on the Board until April 2009. After Meng departed from Skycom’s Board, Skycom’s Board members continued to be Huawei employees, Canicula continued to own Skycom, and Canicula continued to be controlled by Huawei. As of August 2012, Huawei included Skycom among a list of “other Huawei subsidiaries” in Huawei corporate documents written in English. 

Between 2010 and 2014, Huawei controlled Skycom’s business operations in Iran, and Skycom was owned by an entity controlled by Huawei. All significant Skycom business decisions were made by Huawei. Moreover, Skycom’s countrymanager – the head of the business – was a Huawei employee. Individuals employed by Skycom believed they worked for Huawei. 

During the same time period, Huawei employees engaged with a U.K. staffing company to provide engineers in Iran to support Skycom’s work with Iranian telecommunications service providers. Negotiations and contracting on behalf of Skycom were conducted by Huawei employees. To pay for these contractors, Huawei sent at least $7.5 million to the U.K. staffing company in a series of approximately 80 payments from Skycom’s bank accounts in Asia, including at a multinational financial institution (Financial Institution 1), to the U.K. staffing company’s account in the United Kingdom. The transactions were denominated in U.S. dollars and cleared through the United States. 

In December 2012 and January 2013, various news organizations, including Reuters, reported that Skycom offered to sell “embargoed” equipment from a U.S. computer equipment manufacturer in Iran in potential violation of U.S. export controls law, and that Huawei had close ties with Skycom. In a statement to Reuters published in a December 2012 article, Huawei claimed that Skycom was one of its “major local partners” in Iran. Reuters reported that Huawei had further stated that “Huawei’s business in Iran is in full compliance with all applicable laws and regulations including those of the U.N., U.S. and E.U. This commitment has been carried out and followed strictly by our company. Further, we also require our partners to follow the same commitment and strictly abide by the relevant laws and regulations.” 

In January 2013, a subsequent Reuters article reported that Meng served on the Board of Directors of Skycom between February 2008 and April 2009 and identified other connections between Skycom directors and Huawei. The article also quoted the following statement from Huawei: “The relationship between Huawei and Skycom is a normal business partnership. Huawei has established a trade compliance system which is in line with industry best practices and our business in Iran is in full compliance with all applicable laws and regulations including those of the UN. We also require our partners, such as Skycom, to make the same commitments.” This statement was incorrect, as Huawei operated and controlled Skycom; Skycom was therefore not Huawei’s business “partner.” 

After these articles were published, Financial Institution 1 and other global financial institutions that provided international banking services to Huawei (collectively, the “Financial Institutions”), including U.S. dollar-clearing, made inquiries to Huawei in response to the above-described press reports. In early 2013, Huawei employees represented to the Financial Institutions that Skycom was just a local business partner of Huawei in Iran and that Skycom had not conducted Iran-related transactions using its accounts at the Financial Institutions. 

To address the allegations in the news reports, Huawei requested an in-person meeting with a senior Financial Institution 1 employee. That meeting occurred on Aug. 22, 2013 in Hong Kong, at which time Meng met with an executive of Financial Institution 1 responsible for operations in the Asia Pacific region. During the meeting, Meng delivered a PowerPoint presentation written in Chinese, which was translated by an interpreter into English. Meng stated that she was using an interpreter to be precise in her language. 

In her presentation, Meng stated, among other things, that Huawei’s relationship with Skycom was “normal business cooperation” and “normal and controllable business cooperation,” and she described Skycom as a “partner,” a “business partner of Huawei,” and a “third party Huawei works with” in Iran. Those statements were untrue because, as Meng knew, Skycom was not a business partner of, or a third party working with, Huawei; instead, Huawei controlled Skycom, and Skycom employees were really Huawei employees. It would have been material to Financial Institution 1 to know that Huawei controlled Skycom. 

In addition, Meng stated that Huawei “was once a shareholder of Skycom” but had “sold all its shares in Skycom.” Those statements were untrue, because, as Meng knew, Huawei had “sold” its shares to an entity that Huawei controlled. Specifically, Huawei transferred Skycom shares from a Huawei subsidiary (Hua Ying) to another entity that was controlled by Huawei (Canicula). It would have been material to Financial Institution 1 to know that Skycom was transferred from one Huawei-controlled entity to another. 

Finally, Meng stated that Huawei “operates in Iran in strict compliance with applicable laws, regulations and sanctions” and that “there has been no violation of export control regulations” by “Huawei or any third party Huawei works with.” These statements were untrue because Huawei’s operation of Skycom, which caused the Financial Institutions to provide prohibited services, including banking services, for Huawei’s Iran-based business while Huawei concealed Skycom’s link to Huawei, was in violation of the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control’s Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. Part 560. Moreover, between 2010 and 2014, Huawei caused Skycom to conduct approximately $100 million worth of U.S.-dollar transactions through Financial Institution 1 that cleared through the United States, at least some of which supported its work in Iran in violation of U.S. law, including $7.5 million for Iran-based contractors from the U.K. staffing company to do work in Iran. 

At no point during or after the meeting did Meng, who was aware of Huawei’s public statements about Skycom in Reuters, retract or amend any of those statements. Moreover, Huawei’s Treasurer, who also attended the August meeting, did not correct or amend any of the statements made by Meng. 

Shortly after the meeting between Meng and Financial Institution 1, Huawei prepared an English version of the PowerPoint presentation at Financial Institution 1’s request. Meng later arranged for a paper copy of that PowerPoint presentation to be delivered to the Financial Institution 1 executive she had met with in September 2013. The representations in the English version of the PowerPoint presentation closely tracked the ones Meng had made during the meeting.

After the meeting and subsequent to receipt of Meng’s PowerPoint presentation, Financial Institution 1 decided to continue its relationship with Huawei. The other Financial Institutions similarly continued their respective relationships with Huawei. 

The DPA 

Under the terms of the DPA, Meng has agreed to the accuracy of a four-page statement of facts that details the knowingly false statements she made to Financial Institution 1. Meng also has agreed not to commit other federal, state or local crimes. If Meng breaches the agreement, she will be subject to prosecution of all the charges against her in the third superseding indictment filed in this case. The government also agreed to withdraw its request to the Ministry of Justice of Canada that Meng be extradited to the United States. 

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Alexander A. Solomon, Julia Nestor, David K. Kessler, Sarah M. Evans and Meredith A. Arfa for the Eastern District of New York; Trial Attorneys Laura Billings and Christian Nauvel for the Criminal Division’s Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section; and Trial Attorneys Thea D. R. Kendler, David Lim and R. Elizabeth Abraham of the National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section are prosecuting the case. Valuable assistance was provided by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Brian Morris and Brendan King of the Eastern District of New York’s Civil Division and Associate Director John Riesenberg, Attaché Andrew Finkelman of U.S. Embassy Paris and former Trial Attorney Margaret O’Malley of the Justice Department’s Office of International Affairs.

(全文转自深圳大学合规研究院微信公号,原文已被删除)

关注时事,订阅新闻邮件
本订阅可随时取消

发表评论

您的电子邮件地址将不会发布。