Loading articles...

Email evidence shows no proof of conspiracy with FBI in Meng Wanzhou extradition proceeding

FILE: Huawei chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou, who is out on bail and remains under partial house arrest after she was detained last year at the behest of American authorities, leaves her home to attend a court hearing in Vancouver, on Tuesday, September 24, 2019. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck

Meng Wanzhou's defense team spent the day trying to convince a judge of the many ways her rights were violated

Defense hoped an email the prosecution has in its possession would prove that RCMP conspired with FBI

Only Canadian police were sent the email, and no American police were included

VANCOUVER (NEWS 1130) —  Lawyers defending Meng Wanzhou were hoping to convince a judge to shut down extradition proceedings over an email they claimed proves a conspiracy between Canadian law enforcement and FBI.

The court has looked at the email, and found it didn’t prove that, according to Richard Kurland, an immigration lawyer who spent the day in court to observe.

RELATED: RCMP gave FBI serial numbers, other details about Meng Wanzhou’s phones: defence

The defense team for the Chinese telecom executive demanded a previously undisclosed email to be submitted into evidence, saying the prosecution was in possession of it.

The judge agreed and experts thought it seemed the evidence might show rights violations and abuses of power.

RELATED: No evidence FBI, RCMP directed border guards’ examination of Meng Wanzhou: Crown

Instead, only RCMP members and not FBI as alleged were included in the email.

Now, the judge is deciding what comes next and has ordered more documents be disclosed.

“Plus, court ordered that a person with personal knowledge provide the docs, which opens the door to examination under oath,” says Kurland.

The prosecution is sticking to it’s story saying there’s just no evidence of the so-called cross-border conspiracy.

But Canadian border guards have admitted to handing her device passwords to police, saying it happened “in error.”