Lawyer for Meng Wanzhou urges judge to turf Mountie’s claim that he didn’t share info with FBI

Huawei's Meng Wanzhou leaves her home to attend a hearing at B.C. Supreme Court, in Vancouver, on Monday, March 22, 2021. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck

VANCOUVER — A lawyer for Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou says a retired Mountie’s refusal to testify in the extradition case adds weight to an argument that the officer shared information about her devices with U.S. investigators.

Click to play video: 'Meng Wanzhou defence says Donald Trump comments tainted process'
Meng Wanzhou defence says Donald Trump comments tainted process

Scott Fenton told a B.C. Supreme Court judge that former staff sergeant Ben Chang is the “most important witness” on the issue of whether electronic serial numbers were improperly shared with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Story continues below advertisement

The court has heard Chang was asked by the FBI for information about Meng’s devices in order to enter a legal request to obtain them, although there is no direct evidence the information was sent.

Fenton says Chang retired six months after Meng’s arrest, moved to Macau and refused to testify, beyond filing an affidavit saying he did not share the information.

Breaking news from Canada and around the world sent to your email, as it happens.

The arguments are part of a hearing that will determine if Meng was subjected to an abuse of process by Canadian officials, and if proven the judge will decide whether extradition proceedings should be stayed against her.

Click to play video: 'Lawyers for Huawei executive cast doubts on who knew what, when'
Lawyers for Huawei executive cast doubts on who knew what, when

Meng is wanted in the United States on fraud charges related to violations of U.S. sanctions against Iran, which both she and Huawei deny.

Story continues below advertisement

Fenton called the refusal of the former RCMP officer to submit to cross-examination “one of the more troubling elements in the case” and “unprecedented.”

He urged the judge to give no weight to Chang’s written testimony and instead to take an “adverse inference,” or conclude that the cross-examination would have undermined the claims in his affidavit.

Sponsored content