A U.S. judge in Brooklyn ruled on Tuesday that admissions made by Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhouas part of a 2021 deal that allowed her release are admissible in the criminal case against Huawei itself, which is set to go to trial in September.
See also: Maduro: Huawei Mate X6 gift from China is immune to US spies
The decision centers on a four-page statement of facts in which Meng admitted to lying to a financial institution about Huawei's compliance with U.S. sanctions and export control laws. That admission is linked to bank fraud charges she faced over the company's dealings with Iran.
Meng made the admission to secure a deferred prosecution agreement that resolved her personal case and ended her long detention in Canada. U.S. Judge Ann Donnelly said Huawei can no longer separate that statement from its own trial
Donnelly wrote: “Huawei Tech should not be able to argue that accepting the statement of its senior executive regarding her conduct in relation to her work, which Huawei Tech adopted, violates Huawei Tech’s rights.”
The logic behind this decision is that Meng was speaking about her work for Huawei, and the company cannot disavow her words while continuing to employ her at a senior level.
The practical impact of this ruling is significant. Prosecutors can now present to a jury an admission by Huawei’s own CFO that the company misled a bank about its compliance with sanctions. This evidence is distinct from outside testimony or conclusions drawn by investigators. It comes directly from the company, recorded in a statement signed by the Huawei executive herself.
See also: EU toughens stance against Huawei and ZTE
The case against Huawei is a crucial part of the long U.S. campaign against the company, which has been framed as a national security issue and pursued through both export controls and criminal prosecution. The Iran sanctions allegations are among the oldest, fraud-focused aspects of that effort, predating many of the chip-era restrictions, but remain central to Huawei’s ongoing criminal record.
During this period, Huawei has focused on withstanding US pressure rather than succumbing to it, developing domestic technology to circumvent sanctions and challenging US measures whenever possible.
The Brooklyn ruling represents a setback for Huawei in court, one that the company cannot avoid. The ruling is based on both corporate law and criminal procedure. Donnelly’s logic suggests that a company that keeps an executive in a senior role is adopting her statements about her work, closing off a potential avenue for Huawei to distance itself from Meng’s admissions.
Typically, companies argue that an individual's admissions, made to resolve that person's case, should not bind the company. However, the judge concluded that the relationship between Meng and Huawei is too close for such a separation to be valid.
The stakes are high, as the US sees Huawei as a strategic adversary, not just a defendant. Successive rounds of export controls have aimed to cut the company off from advanced chips and tools, and the criminal case represents an older, parallel course of that campaign, focusing on conduct rather than capability. A conviction would provide Washington with legal validation of the security argument it has politically championed for years.
See also: DeepSeek-R1-Safe: New AI model with the help of Huawei
The trial is set for September, and while the ruling doesn’t set the outcome, it does set out what the jury will be allowed to hear. It confirms that the words Meng signed to secure her freedom in 2021 will now follow the company into court. For Huawei, the admission that secured its CFO’s freedom has become evidence for which it must now account.
