What is a deferred prosecution agreement?
According to Professor Chen Ruihua, "DPA" is an agreement reached between US federal law enforcement agencies or regulators and the enterprises involved. The enterprises involved need to admit the alleged criminal acts, negotiate with law enforcement agencies or regulatory agencies to pay the fines, and pay these fines on time after reaching an agreement. At the same time, law enforcement agencies or regulatory agencies set a certain test period, during which the enterprises involved establish compliance systems, plug loopholes in the company's operating system, and change the company's operating methods. After continuous supervision and examination, the law enforcement organ or the supervisory organ shall decide whether to initiate public prosecution after the expiration of the period. Once it is considered that the company has fulfilled the obligations agreed in the agreement and established a relatively perfect compliance mechanism, law enforcement departments and regulatory agencies will no longer file a public prosecution with the court, and the case will eventually end with the company involved being exempted from conviction and avoiding criminal punishment.
Therefore, according to this definition, the deferred prosecution agreement usually applies to enterprises, provided that the enterprises involved admit the alleged criminal acts.
2. Did Meng Wanzhou confess?
Meng Wanzhou is a natural person. It is natural persons, not enterprises, who have reached an agreement with the US federal law enforcement agencies to suspend prosecution. This is different from the typical deferred prosecution agreement. According to the definition of deferred prosecution agreement, the defendant needs to admit the crime in exchange for the temporary non-prosecution of law enforcement agencies. If the accused subject meets the compliance conditions of the agreement within the agreement period, the US federal agency will not prosecute after the agreement expires. The result of not prosecuting is to be considered innocent.
Then, according to the disclosure, the US federal agency made a decision to suspend the prosecution on the condition that Meng Wanzhou recognized a certain fact, and wrote that Meng Wanzhou should not change its recognition of the fact or express regret.
From the point of view of admitting facts, it can be considered that Meng Wanzhou admitted some facts that accused the US federal law enforcement agencies of committing crimes. However, judging from whether it actually constitutes a crime, as long as Meng Wanzhou abides by the deferred prosecution agreement, the US federal law enforcement agencies will no longer charge the facts admitted by Meng Wanzhou as a crime, and Meng Wanzhou will be free as an innocent person.
Therefore, Meng Wanzhou's lawyer said that it was a fact that Meng Wanzhou pleaded not guilty. But from another perspective, Meng Wanzhou admitted that some criminal facts accused by the US federal agencies are also realistic.
This statement sounds circuitous, but this is the magic of the deferred prosecution agreement, which not only meets the law enforcement needs of the US federal law enforcement agencies, but also meets the innocence demands of the accused subjects. Of course, you can also say that it prevents the federal agencies in the United States from really investigating criminal acts in American law, but it also does not completely free the defendant from the shackles of criminal facts.
The above is my understanding of the deferred prosecution agreement between the federal law enforcement agencies in Meng Wanzhou and the United States.
Meng Wanzhou's return to China, from a diplomatic point of view, requires all parties to step down. The deferred prosecution agreement is a judicial tool for all parties.
3. One fact and two statements are the miracle that Meng Wanzhou agreed to suspend the prosecution.
As mentioned above, the agreement of postponing prosecution is a judicial tool for the parties. Therefore, from the perspective of the United States, it can be considered that Meng Wanzhou admitted the facts of the crime and Meng Wanzhou was suspended from prosecution. If Meng Wanzhou abides by the agreement, it will no longer be regarded as a crime. From the perspective of China and Meng Wanzhou, Meng Wanzhou only admitted part of the facts, but did not admit the crime (because from the perspective of Meng Wanzhou and China, Meng Wanzhou's behavior does not constitute a crime).
The crux of the matter is, what is the standard for determining a crime? Whether Meng Wanzhou constitutes a crime is determined according to American law, China law or recognized international law. Based on its hostile attitude towards Iran, the United States imposed sanctions on Iran and prohibited American enterprises from doing business with Iran. Then Huawei, where Meng Wanzhou is located, is a China enterprise, which is not governed by American law. However, based on the long-arm jurisdiction (China has never recognized the long-arm jurisdiction of the United States), the United States believes that Huawei must also abide by the US sanctions order.
Then, if American law and its long-arm jurisdiction are recognized, Meng Wanzhou's admission of part of the facts of the accusation is tantamount to admission of criminal acts. If we don't recognize the long-arm jurisdiction of American law in international affairs, then Meng Wanzhou's admission of some alleged facts does not mean admission of criminal acts.
In my opinion, the fundamental basis of Meng Wanzhou's statement that Meng Wanzhou does not plead guilty is that he does not recognize the long-arm jurisdiction of American law over international affairs. Since the United States has no jurisdiction, the accusation of the United States federal agencies is like water without a source. It can be said that Meng Wanzhou has not admitted the crime.