A bit late about this but I finally had the time to look at the defense arguments in the very important Meng Wanzhou extradition case. In case you have forgotten she is the CFO of Huawei and is detained in Canada on charges brought by the US.
Huawei is accused of defrauding HSBC by not disclosing the fact that Huawei controlled an Iranian subsidiary, Skycom and putting HSBC at risk of breaching US sanctions.
There is no easy way out of this for HSBC. If Meng is extradited HSBC will probably face sanctions in China. But if Meng is not extradited it could mean that HSBC faces a genuine sanction risk. Not sure which is worse.
It is not easy for Canada either because shortly after Meng was arrested two Canadians were arrested in China on espionage charges and the outcome of their trial is widely viewed as connected to the Meng trial
What I have always found in this case is this: 1. under KYC rules knowing who controls your client is a basic requirement and 2. How is the fact that Huawei controls Skycom relevant to the Iran sanction issue ?
And - you guessed it - the heavily redacted defendant brief makes precisely those two points. I find this particularly bad for HSBC 
A decision is expected in November. Paradoxically HSBC might be happier if Meng is not extradited even if it suggests an issue with Iran sanctions. Indeed the alternative – a major problem with China could be even worse. How times change.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
