China's Huawei must face US criminal charges, judge rules
NEW YORK (Reuters) -A U.S. judge on Tuesday rejected Huawei Technologies' bid to dismiss most of a federal indictment accusing the Chinese telecommunications company of trying to steal technology secrets from U.S. rivals, and misleading banks about its work in Iran.
In a 52-page decision, U.S. District Judge Ann Donnelly in Brooklyn found sufficient allegations in the 16-count indictment that Huawei engaged in racketeering to expand its brand, stole trade secrets from six companies, and committed bank fraud.
The Iran accusations stemmed from Huawei's alleged control of Skycom, a Hong Kong company that did business in that country.
Donnelly said prosecutors satisfactorily alleged Skycom "operated as Huawei's Iranian subsidiary and ultimately stood to benefit, in a roundabout way," from more than $100 million of money transfers through the U.S. financial system.
Huawei has pleaded not guilty and had sought to dismiss 13 of the 16 counts, calling itself "a prosecutorial target in search of a crime."
A trial is scheduled for May 4, 2026, and could last several months.
Neither Huawei nor its lawyers immediately responded to requests for comment. A spokesperson for Interim U.S. Attorney Joseph Nocella in Brooklyn declined to comment.
The criminal case began during U.S. President Donald Trump's first term in 2018, the same year the Department of Justice launched its China Initiative to address Beijing's alleged theft of intellectual property.
Huawei Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou, whose father founded the company, had been a defendant, and was detained in Canada for nearly three years before being allowed to return to China. Charges against her were dismissed in 2022.
In 2022, President Joe Biden's administration scrapped the China Initiative, after critics said it amounted to racial profiling and caused fear that chilled scientific research.
Based in Shenzhen, Huawei operates in more than 170 countries and has about 208,000 employees.
The U.S. government has restricted Huawei's access to American technology since 2019, citing national security concerns. Huawei denies it is a threat.
The case is U.S. v. Huawei Technologies Co et al, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, No. 18-cr-00457.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Major US Kitchen Appliance Brand That's Owned By A Chinese Company
Do you know who owns the companies behind the appliances in your kitchen? These days, it's tougher than ever to know for sure, even if you're familiar with the brand name stamped on your range, fridge, or dishwasher. In the tumultuous world of corporate mergers and acquisitions, even seemingly all-American brands can end up with overseas ownership. An excellent example of this is General Electric (GE), which has been owned by Chinese interests for nearly a decade. The purchase took place in 2016, when Qingdao Haier put together the $5.4 billion deal behind it. If the Haier name sounds familiar, that's because the company also sells appliances under its own brand, though experts and home cooks alike say the brand might be the most unreliable one yet. At the time, the announcement of the deal specifically noted GE Appliances would continue to be based in the U.S., maintaining its Louisville, Kentucky, headquarters. Nine years later, the division is still headquartered there, proving that not everything has to change when new owners take over. Read more: How To Cook Perfect Steak 13 Different Ways There's no doubt GE Appliances' overseas ownership is somewhat unexpected and surprising for many people. After all, the brand has been part of American homes since the 1890s, when it came into being through the merger of several companies owned by iconic American inventor Thomas Edison and others. GE has produced a wide variety of items over that time, including a number of kitchen appliances such as electric can openers and carving knives that kids today may have never even seen. Founded in 1984, Haier is far younger. However, the company has grown, accumulating more than $55 billion in annual revenue through ownership of appliance brands such as Casarte, Leader, Fisher & Paykel, and many more worldwide. Still, the GE deal was the largest acquisition of an overseas electronics business in China's history. Regardless of who owns GE Appliances or where they're based, those looking to upgrade their kitchen should shop with caution. The company has just a 1.2 out of 5 stars on Trustpilot, with GE fridges earning only 1.1 out of 5 on ConsumerAffairs. Even though kitchen trends come and go, it's vital to make the best decisions about your appliances. In this case, that includes understanding the full picture of who owns GE Appliances, regardless of the company's American roots. Read the original article on Mashed.
Axios
33 minutes ago
- Axios
The U.S. military can't quit the Middle East
If you're in the defense business, you've seen this meme in one form or another. "Born too late to deploy to the Middle East," it reads. "Born too early to deploy to the Middle East," it continues. "Born just in time to deploy to the Middle East," it concludes. Why it matters: Flippant? Yes. Compelling? Also yes, as the image's virality today reflects just how entangled the U.S. is in the troubled region, even as it promises to pivot more fully to the Chinese and Russian threat. This is geopolitical tug of war, spiked with public cynicism. Driving the news: Surprise strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities using B-2 Spirit bombers and 100-plus other aircraft marked Washington's latest foray into the Middle East, where for decades it's expended taxpayer dollars and lives. (Think Afghanistan, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen.) Meanwhile, the Pentagon frets over Beijing and Moscow and their global ambitions. But the resources needed for that competition — including heavy-duty, traditional military hardware like aircraft carriers — are in high demand elsewhere. Friction point: "There is a disconnect between what we, the United States, say in our national defense strategies and those sorts of products and what actually happens on the ground," Brian Carter, a Middle East expert at the American Enterprise Institute, told Axios. "The problem is: We episodically prioritize the Middle East over China," he said. "Wehaven't been good about ensuring that we put enough effort into the Middle East to make sure that things don't spiral out of control." "When we have to surge all this stuff in, we're always reactive." Between the lines: Pentagon officials and military leaders have been hinting at this dynamic. Elbridge Colby, the undersecretary of defense for policy, has long lobbied for prioritizing China over Europe and the Middle East. During his March confirmation hearing, Colby told senators the U.S. lacks "a multi-war military." Indo-Pacific Command boss Adm. Samuel Paparo in November said support provided to Israel and Ukraine was "eating into" some of the most precious U.S. weapons stockpiles. In April, he revealed it took at least 73 flights to move a Patriot air-defense battalion out of China's backyard and into Central Command. And most recently — just days ago — Acting Chief of Naval Operations Adm. James Kilby told lawmakers the Navy is chewing through Standard Missile-3s at "an alarming rate." The service has used more than $1 billion in munitions fighting Houthi rebels near the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, and the USS Harry S. Truman has lost three Super Hornet aircraft, including one to friendly fire. Zoom out: "The Middle East is the space where four things come together," Daryl Press, the faculty director at the Davidson Institute for Global Security, said in an interview. "It's terrorism and terrorist groups." "It's nuclear weapons and potential for proliferation." "It's the world's most important exportable energy supplies." "And then it's a bunch of countries which have, I would say, somewhat weak control over their borders and airspace."
Axios
33 minutes ago
- Axios
Exclusive: Changes to U.S. weapons sales mustn't be "haphazard," says Rep. Dean
It's too soon to tell whether President Trump's April executive order meant to expedite arms sales to foreign militaries will help or hurt the often complicated process, Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Penn.) told Axios. Why it matters: Widespread adoption of American weapons is a sign of power, both hard and soft. Dean is among the dozen lawmakers assigned to the House Foreign Arms Sales Task Force, an offshoot of the chamber's Foreign Affairs Committee. What they're saying: "I worry about all of the president's executive orders because they are haphazard," Dean said at an Axios event last week in Washington. "We do not want a system of foreign military sales, for example, that is just haphazard," she said. State of play: The value of weapons, services and other activities handled by the foreign military sales system in fiscal 2024 totaled $118 billion. That's a nearly 46% increase compared to fiscal 2023, according to the State Department. Notifications made to Congress included tanks for Bahrain and Romania, helicopters for South Korea and Greece, and missiles for Poland and Norway. Catch up quick: The bipartisan task force launched in March with the stated goal of "crafting legislative reforms to ensure the foreign arms sales process meets the demands of the future." Trump's foreign sales fiat rolled out weeks later.
