US judge lets prosecutors use Meng Wanzhou admissions at Huawei trial
A Brooklyn court ruling gives U.S. prosecutors stronger evidence in Huawei’s long-running criminal case.
In 30 seconds
- A U.S. district judge has ruled that Meng Wanzhou’s 2021 admissions may be used in Huawei’s corporate criminal trial.
- The U.S. Justice Department said Meng admitted in 2021 that she made misleading statements about Huawei’s Iran business.
- U.S. prosecutors allege Huawei engaged in bank fraud, sanctions-related deception, racketeering and trade-secret theft.
- Huawei denies the allegations and has argued that parts of the U.S. case are vague or extraterritorial.
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.
What happens next
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.
What to do
Nothing changes immediately for Belgian consumers’ phones or internet service. The practical takeaway is for telecom operators, public buyers and compliance teams: U.S. legal proceedings can influence supplier-risk assessments, sanctions screening and contract reviews even when the underlying infrastructure decisions are made under EU and Belgian rules.
How we got here
- 2018-12-01
Meng Wanzhou was arrested in Vancouver on a U.S. extradition request.
- 2019-01-28
The U.S. Justice Department announced fraud charges against Huawei and Meng.
- 2020-02-13
The U.S. Justice Department announced racketeering and trade-secret allegations against Huawei and subsidiaries.
- 2021-09-24
Meng entered a deferred prosecution agreement with the U.S. Justice Department.
- 2022-12-02
A U.S. court dismissed the charges against Meng after the deferral period ended.
EvidenceWell established · 1 primary source + 4 official documents + 1 independent reporting source · Academic sources: 1Explore evidence →Hide evidence ↑
- Published:
- 17 Jun 2026, 02:00
- Retrieved by ODIN:
- 17 Jun 2026
- Published:
- 24 Sept 2021, 02:00
- Retrieved by ODIN:
- 17 Jun 2026
- Published:
- 13 Feb 2020, 01:00
- Retrieved by ODIN:
- 17 Jun 2026
- Published:
- 2 Jul 2025, 02:00
- Retrieved by ODIN:
- 17 Jun 2026
- Published:
- 15 Jun 2023, 02:00
- Retrieved by ODIN:
- 17 Jun 2026
- Published:
- 29 Jan 2020, 01:00
- Retrieved by ODIN:
- 17 Jun 2026
- Published:
- 15 May 2023, 02:00
- Retrieved by ODIN:
- 17 Jun 2026
Continue reading
This story was assembled from verified evidence, with its sources and reasoning recorded as it was written.
This briefing was prepared with AI assistance and passed Belgium Impulse source, provenance and publication-quality checks. methodology.