belgiumpulse
Search
US judge lets prosecutors use Meng Wanzhou admissions at Huawei trial
https://apnews.com/author/elaine-kurtenbach
← International
LEGAL WATCH

US judge lets prosecutors use Meng Wanzhou admissions at Huawei trial

A U.S. district judge has ruled that prosecutors may use Meng Wanzhou’s 2021 admissions in the criminal case against Huawei, raising the evidentiary stakes in a long-running prosecution over alleged bank fraud, sanctions breaches, racketeering and trade-secret theft. The U.S. Justice Department said in 2021 that Meng, Huawei’s chief financial officer, agreed to a deferred prosecution statement of facts about representations made to a global financial institution over Huawei-linked business in Iran; the charges against Meng were later dismissed, but the company’s case continued. Huawei denies wrongdoing and has argued in court that U.S. claims are overbroad and improperly extraterritorial. For Europe, the ruling lands in a wider fight over whether Chinese technology suppliers should remain inside critical networks, an issue the European Commission has tied to 5G security and high-risk vendors.

Belgium Impulse Editorial·17 June 2026·3 min read·7 sources
Key signal

This is mainly a U.S.-China corporate and sanctions case, but it matters for Belgian telecom operators, cybersecurity officials, SMEs using Chinese network equipment and policy readers following EU tech sovereignty. The European Commission has already said EU countries are justified in restricting Huawei and ZTE in 5G networks, so any U.S. court finding that strengthens or weakens the factual record around Huawei will feed the Brussels debate over critical infrastructure, supplier risk and relations with Beijing.

Meng Wanzhou (Huawei chief financial officer, born 1972, daughter of founder Ren Zhengfei) became the public face of the case after her 2018 arrest in Canada. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (Shenzhen-based Chinese telecoms and technology group founded in 1987) is the corporate defendant. Skycom Tech Co. Ltd. (Hong Kong company active in Iran, described by U.S. prosecutors as Huawei-controlled) sits at the centre of the Iran-related allegations. HSBC (global bank headquartered in London and Hong Kong) is the financial institution prosecutors say was misled. U.S. District Judge Ann Donnelly (federal judge in the Eastern District of New York) is overseeing the Brooklyn criminal case. The U.S. Justice Department (federal law-enforcement department) brought the prosecution. The EU 5G Toolbox (European cybersecurity framework adopted in 2020) guides member states on high-risk telecom suppliers.

Background

The U.S. Justice Department charged Huawei and Meng in January 2019 over alleged bank and wire fraud linked to Iran sanctions. In February 2020, the Justice Department added racketeering and trade-secret allegations against Huawei and subsidiaries. Meng entered a deferred prosecution agreement on 24 September 2021, and the Justice Department moved to dismiss her charges after the deferral period ended in December 2022. In July 2025, U.S. District Judge Ann Donnelly rejected Huawei’s bid to dismiss the broader indictment, allowing the corporate case to proceed toward trial.

The wider picture

Huawei has become a proxy for the wider U.S.-China technology contest: Washington uses export controls, sanctions and prosecutions; Beijing presents those measures as containment of Chinese companies. Europe is caught between security alignment with the United States, dependence on global telecom supply chains and the cost of replacing equipment in critical networks.

Why now

The story is timely because the U.S. court has made an evidentiary ruling before Huawei’s corporate criminal trial, deciding that a 2021 statement by Meng Wanzhou can be placed before jurors.

OIS Intelligence

What to watch

The next signals are trial scheduling, any further motions limiting how prosecutors may use Meng’s statement, and whether Huawei seeks an interlocutory appeal or settlement talks. In Europe, watch whether proposed supplier-risk measures move through the European Parliament and Council.

Opposing perspectives

  1. U.S. prosecutors

    The U.S. Justice Department’s 2021 statement frames Meng’s admissions as evidence that senior Huawei figures misrepresented the company’s Iran-linked business to preserve banking access. From this perspective, admitting the statement of facts at trial helps show corporate knowledge and a pattern of deception rather than an isolated executive episode.

  2. Huawei Technologies

    Huawei’s court position, as reflected in prior dismissal arguments, is that the U.S. case overreaches: the company has denied the allegations and argued that parts of the indictment are vague, premature or improperly extraterritorial. The strongest version of that view is that a geopolitical dispute is being converted into a criminal case.

  3. European Commission security policymakers

    The European Commission’s 5G security material treats supplier trust as a systemic infrastructure question, not only a criminal-law question. From this view, the Huawei case is another data point in assessing high-risk suppliers, but EU decisions should still rest on proportional cybersecurity rules and member-state implementation.

Sources & evidence