Five Charged In European Parliament Huawei Bribery Probe (yahoo.com) 34
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: The Belgian prosecutor's office said on Tuesday that it has charged five people in connection with a bribery investigation in the European Parliament allegedly linked to China's Huawei. The five were detained last week. Four have now been arrested and charged with active corruption and involvement in a criminal organization, while a fifth faces money laundering charges and has been released conditionally. The prosecutor's officer did not disclose the names of those involved or give information that could identify them.
It said new searches had taken place on Monday, this time at European Parliament offices. Huawei said last week it took the allegations seriously. "Huawei has a zero tolerance policy towards corruption or other wrongdoing, and we are committed to complying with all applicable laws and regulations at all times," it said. The prosecutors have said the alleged corruption took place "very discreetly" since 2021 under the guise of commercial lobbying and involved payments for taking certain political stances or excessive gifts such as food and travel expenses or regular invitations to football matches.
It said new searches had taken place on Monday, this time at European Parliament offices. Huawei said last week it took the allegations seriously. "Huawei has a zero tolerance policy towards corruption or other wrongdoing, and we are committed to complying with all applicable laws and regulations at all times," it said. The prosecutors have said the alleged corruption took place "very discreetly" since 2021 under the guise of commercial lobbying and involved payments for taking certain political stances or excessive gifts such as food and travel expenses or regular invitations to football matches.
I am shocked. (Score:2)
Shocked!
Re:I am shocked. (Score:5, Informative)
Every country does it. It's only news because they got caught. Just hours ago The Guardian published this story about the UK: https://www.theguardian.com/so... [theguardian.com]
The EU is fairly resilient to this kind of thing, by international standards. The sort of thing that is normal and tolerated elsewhere won't fly in Brussels.
Re: I am shocked. (Score:4, Informative)
The key here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act [wikipedia.org] is "Foreign". It's still legal to slip US politicians a few bucks. That is considered protected political speech by the courts.
That law was passed because US politicians didn't want some greedy foreigners siphoning money off that they consider to belong to them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The key here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act [wikipedia.org] is "Foreign".
Noting that Trump paused enforcement of that in February because he says it will further American economic and national security by, I guess, increasing corruption -- as noted in his executive order, Pausing Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Enforcement to Further American Economic and National Security [whitehouse.gov]
The argument that everyone else does it, so why shouldn't we doesn't make it right, ethical or moral, but maybe the U.S. doesn't, at least, try to stand for any of that anymore... Maybe we can try again in 20
Re: (Score:2)
It's still legal to slip US politicians a few bucks. That is considered protected political speech by the courts.
Neither part of that is remotely true. 18 U.S. Code section 201 [cornell.edu] makes it punishable with up to 15 years in prison to offer or accept a bribe for a federal official's "official act" (which has an extremely broad definition). Section 666 of the same Part has other anti-bribery provisions. In United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of Cal., 526 U.S. 398 (1999) [justia.com], the Supreme Court held that this could be used to prosecute money given for a past act as well. That's not even close to counting as protected speech.
Re: (Score:2)
to offer or accept a bribe for a federal official's "official act"
Prove that there was any kind of quid pro quo. I gave him the money because he's a nice guy and I wanted to help his campaign. Anyone stupid enough to put the details in writing deserves the gang raping in the federal pen.
Also, prove intent. There's a reason these deals are made on the golf course, with both parties liquored up. Too drunk to form the intent necessary to prove the crime*.
*Argument actually used (successfully) by one of our state supreme court justices when she got stopped for .... drunk dr
Re: (Score:2)
Prove that there was any kind of quid pro quo.
The 1999 Supreme Court case I linked to specifically said there did not need to be any quid pro quo, only a "nexus" to an official act. (State-level equivalents of that law vary on this point.)
And lots of prosecutions prove intent. For example, Trump's 34 convictions in New York State court each had a corrupt-intent element that had to be proven.
Re: (Score:2)
And lots of prosecutions prove intent.
If they want to. It's called prosecutorial discretion. And it works most effectively across party boundaries.
Do you mean to tell me that you've never heard a cop say "If I didn't see it, it didn't happen"?
Re:I am shocked. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This is like a mafia boss saying they have a zero tolerance policy for murder. "I only told them to take care of the guy. I had no idea they would do that."
Re: Sounds familiar (Score:2)
I meant buy him a soda! Kids these daysâ¦
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Sounds familiar (Score:4, Informative)
zero Huawei gear allowed in the 5G rollout and Democrat Senators said that's racist and we should partner with Huawei.
You got a source on that because what I can find is that Nancy Pelosi and many other Democrats supported that measure
‘Nancy Pelosi and Donald Trump see Huawei the same.’ 5G in Europe aligns America’s top political rivals [defensenews.com]
“Nancy Pelosi and Donald Trump are probably not going to have many dinners together but, if you ask them about British purchase of Huawei, they’ll give you the same answer,” Graham said.
Even Trump waffled on this “President Xi of China, and I, are working together to give massive Chinese phone company, ZTE, a way to get back into business, fast. Too many jobs in China lost.”
Who is trying to partner with who again?
Re:Sounds familiar (Score:5, Informative)
Remember when Trump said absolutely zero Huawei gear allowed in the 5G rollout and Democrat Senators said that's racist and we should partner with Huawei.
I don't remember that.
What I remember is a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing in February 2018 where heads of the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, and the director of national intelligence spoke out against the use of Huawei and ZTE. The main US telecom operators saying they wouldn't use Huawei 5G. The FCC voting unanimously banning the use government funds to buy Chinese telecom equipment.
Then in August 2018 Trump jumps on board and officially starts banning Huawei when in practice that was already happening.
I don't remember anyone being on the other side of this at that point and if it happened I'd appreciate them being named and quoted because as you say that would warrant some attention.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Perhaps someone should look into what payments Trump is receiving to spout the Russian narrative. It seems awfully strange how he never criticizes the dictator Putin but rails against a democratically elected Zelinsky who is trying to save his country from Russia's invasion.
Re:Sounds familiar (Score:4, Insightful)
Only as strange as Ukrainian oil companies having Hunter as and HPC and his art suddenly not selling once daddy was out of office.
Or how before Zelinsky was elected the last guy who was pro-Russian was removed from office by extra legal action, and how that did not stop anyone in the Obama administration for recognizing Ukraine after what was a coup, without the congressional action that should have required.
There's a pretty big difference between some petty interests trying to curry favor with the presidents kid so he'll bring some otherwise minor topic up at dinner with dad, versus the actual president of the United States seeming to be a mix of scared and awed by the authoritarian leader of one of the most bitter adversaries the US has ever had. One is distasteful, the other is shameful if not treasonous.
Also, Viktor Yanukovych was voted to be removed by the Ukrainian parliament without a single dissenting vote cast after sending his own personal secret police force to murder protesters. Protesters who were angry that he was clearly trying to maneuver Ukraine away from being a western aligned democracy towards an authoritarian Russian satellite nation (a la Belarus). His own political party condemned him. And all of this was on top of well documented acts of corruption for basically his entire presidency. He then fled to Russia rather than face justice, where he has since acted as a Russian puppet during their war of conquest with Ukraine. In absentia he was investigated and convicted of high treason for assisting the first Russian invasion.
That you parrot the Russian narrative of a coup tells me you're either a Russian or a particularly stupid westerner.
Re: (Score:1)
Talking points straight from Russia.
Ukrainian oligarchs were pretty solidly aligned with Russia rather than Ukraine. They thrived on the corruption that had been around for decades. It's no surprise that Russian affiliated corrupt oligarchs would try to influence the Bidens by going after Hunter. And Hunter is just the sort of guy to go along with it.
Ukraine's leadership has a history of going against the people and keeping close ties with Russia. During the protests against the former guy's actions, th
Re: Sounds familiar (Score:2)
someone remind them they're owned by the Chinese communist party
But that's not considered to be corruption in China. Particularly since they don't really hide it. After all, they are Communist. Where the workers own the means of production. The Party is just the ownership structure they prefer.
In the USA, we have the same sort of thing. The largest class of equity owners are pension funds like CALPERS. Arguably just as political as the CCP.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember when Trump said absolutely zero Huawei gear allowed in the 5G rollout and Democrat Senators said that's racist and we should partner with Huawei.
No, because revisionist history only exists in your head. https://www.reuters.com/world/... [reuters.com]
I know this is America so I'll help you a long with a word you may not understand:
bipartisan
adjective
involving the agreement or cooperation of two political parties that usually oppose each other's policies.
Re: (Score:2)
What I remember is the Trump state dept advising the EU not to buy gear from Huawei while the EU officials were suspiciously hesitant to wean themselves from their discounted 5G tech (when companies like Ericcson would have been more than willing to step in, albeit at a higher price).
We're sorry! (Score:1)
Never could happen in America (Score:2)
You can't bribe our politicians, because it's not considered a crime here.
Alleged (Score:1)
Typical that most (all?) comments here presume guilt, when they're alleged. No semblance of innocent until proven guilty.
Typical American bigotry.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Most Slashdot posters are bigoted against corporations and other large organizations.
Well, most of the ones that post when a corporation is accused of a crime, anyway. (Note that most of the posts assume that Huawei was guilty, and pay no attention to the particular persons accused. [Admittedly, it's difficult to pay attention to anonymous people.])
Re: (Score:2)
Most Slashdot posters are bigoted against corporations and other large organizations.
And most Slashdot moderators are biased in their favor, apparently, judging by the way comments critical of corporations and other large organizations are typically scored.
Re: (Score:2)
For some reason, though, moderators seem to hate it when I point out that you can buy a smartphone for $100 that's basically indistinguishable from a $1,000 phone.
It's like I insulted their wife or something. Their large, expensive, nosy wife. Should've got a prenup, but I guess the next best thing is to mod me down.
Re: (Score:2)
I have that too sometimes, but for some reason it never happens when I point that out about e.g. Samsung or Pixel devices, only about products from a certain fruit company.
I still use a Moto G Power 2021, it still gets 5 days of battery life with some daily use, it still runs all the apps. Camera is still great any time but in low light conditions, and it's not terrible there either. 8 cores, 4GB, 128GB. It was about $250 with an insurance/replacement plan from Moto, not an addon.
Anyway I think we all know
Re: (Score:2)
I can't speak for others, but when I moderate I do NOT set myself up to be the arbiter of truth. I moderate down when someone is trying to derail the conversation (and that is RARE). I mod up when anything helps fuel the current discussion (whether or NOT I agree with it, or even think that it is accurate), is genuinely informative, or makes a good point.
That is all. Carry on.
Re: (Score:3)
Typical that most (all?) comments here presume guilt, when they're alleged. No semblance of innocent until proven guilty.
Typical American bigotry.
Well, I'm European and I'd say they're by probability guilty as hell (although time will tell). They don't really go around accusing people willy nilly and are quite good at rooting up corruption (recent Qatar scandal). Nothing in this is really surprising, our very own Ericsson isn't exactly spotless.