Huawei’s Long-Delayed U.S. Trial Begins, and It’s More Than The Company’s Business Dealings in...

Huawei's long-running confrontation with the United States is entering a decisive phase, but the case is about far more than alleged sanctions violations and bank fraud.

When jury selection begins Tuesday in federal court in Brooklyn, prosecutors will present a sweeping indictment that reaches from Huawei's dealings with Iran and North Korea to alleged theft of American trade secrets. The defense will confront not only the charges themselves, but also the broader U.S. narrative that Huawei's global expansion was supported by deception and illicit access to technology.

The trial, expected to last about three months, comes eight years after U.S. prosecutors secretly charged the Chinese technology company. It also arrives at a moment when Huawei has become central to China's effort to build a technology industry less dependent on the United States.

Huawei has pleaded not guilty and has denied wrongdoing.

The company faces charges including bank fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, racketeering, obstruction, and violations of U.S. sanctions against Iran. Prosecutors also accuse Huawei of conspiring to steal trade secrets from five U.S. technology companies, concealing aspects of its business in North Korea and supplying surveillance equipment to Iran that was allegedly used to monitor protesters during anti-government demonstrations in Tehran in 2009.

The case began during the first Trump administration with the 2018 arrest of Huawei Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou in Vancouver. Her detention triggered a diplomatic crisis involving the United States, China and Canada and became one of the clearest symbols of the widening conflict over technology, trade and national security.

The U.S. government placed Huawei on its trade blacklist in 2019, cutting the company off from many American technologies. Washington said Huawei posed national-security risks and warned that its telecommunications equipment could be used by Beijing for espionage. Huawei has rejected those allegations.

A conviction would give U.S. officials a criminal verdict to cite in defending restrictions that have often rested on national-security assessments rather than court findings. An acquittal would not automatically remove those restrictions, but it could complicate the legal and political narrative that has supported them.

The trial is also expected to overlap with Chinese President Xi Jinping's scheduled September 24 meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump in Washington. That timing could make the proceedings an additional source of tension as the two governments attempt to manage disputes over tariffs, advanced chips, artificial intelligence and technology exports.

Potential jurors have been asked to complete 27-page questionnaires, including questions about their views of the governments of China and Iran - an indication of how difficult it may be to separate the case from the larger geopolitical conflict.

The Iran And HSBC Allegations

The prosecution partly grew out of Reuters reporting in 2012 and 2013 on Huawei's relationship with Skycom, a company that operated in Iran.

Reuters reported that Skycom had offered in 2010 to sell at least €1.3 million ($1.5 million) of embargoed Hewlett-Packard computer equipment to Iran's largest mobile-phone operator. Reuters also reported that Meng had served on Skycom's board from February 2008 to April 2009.

The U.S. indictment alleges that Huawei used Skycom to obtain restricted U.S. goods, technology and services for its Iran operations and to move money from Iran through the international banking system.

Prosecutors said an unnamed bank processed more than $100 million in U.S.-dollar transactions connected to Skycom. Sources and documents reviewed by Reuters identified that institution as HSBC.

The allegations against Meng focused in part on a presentation she gave to an HSBC executive. Prosecutors said she misrepresented Huawei's ownership and control of Skycom, causing the bank to underestimate the risks of continuing to handle Huawei-related transactions.

Meng later acknowledged that some of her statements were false as part of an agreement with U.S. prosecutors that allowed the charges against her to be dropped. Canadian authorities released her in 2021 after nearly three years of house arrest while she fought extradition to the United States.

Her release eased one of the most volatile elements of the dispute, but it did not end the case against Huawei. The company's trial will now test whether prosecutors can prove that the alleged misrepresentations and transactions were part of a broader corporate scheme rather than isolated actions by individual employees.

A Case That Reaches Far Beyond Iran

The indictment is broader than a conventional sanctions-evasion prosecution. U.S. prosecutors accuse Huawei of conspiring to steal trade secrets from five American technology companies, adding intellectual-property allegations to the case.

The alleged conduct spans roughly 1999 to 2020, covering more than two decades of Huawei's international expansion. That time frame could force jurors to evaluate a large volume of corporate records, employee communications, and technical evidence while determining whether separate incidents formed a coordinated pattern.

Prosecutors have also accused Huawei of concealing aspects of its business activities in North Korea and supplying surveillance technology to Iran. Those allegations are intended to support the government's broader claim that Huawei repeatedly used opaque corporate structures and misleading statements to operate in markets subject to U.S. restrictions.

Huawei has rejected that narrative.

"The government's overarching narrative is demonstrably false," a Huawei spokesperson said in a statement on Saturday.

Beijing has also criticized the prosecution, describing it as part of a broader U.S. campaign to contain China's technological rise. That argument has become more prominent as Huawei has moved from being primarily a telecommunications-equipment maker to becoming one of the most important companies in China's effort to develop domestic capabilities in semiconductors, smartphones, cloud computing and artificial intelligence.

The trial matters more now than it did when the charges were filed because Huawei has become a strategic test of whether China can withstand U.S. technology restrictions.

The 2019 blacklist sharply limited Huawei's access to American components, software and semiconductor technology. The restrictions damaged its smartphone business and disrupted parts of its supply chain, but they also accelerated Huawei's efforts to develop domestic alternatives.

Huawei has since expanded its role in China's technology ecosystem. Its work on advanced chips has made it a symbol of Beijing's push for semiconductor self-sufficiency and a target of continued U.S. efforts to restrict China's access to high-end computing technology.

That creates a paradox at the center of the case. U.S. restrictions were designed to slow Huawei's access to advanced technology, but they also helped turn the company into a national project for China. Huawei's survival has allowed Beijing to argue that American controls can encourage Chinese companies to replace foreign suppliers rather than remain dependent on them.

The prosecution is part of Washington's broader effort to prevent sensitive technology from reaching companies that could support China's military and strategic capabilities. The trial therefore sits at the intersection of criminal law, export controls, industrial policy and national security.

The Consequences Could Extend Beyond Huawei

If Huawei is convicted, legal experts have noted, U.S. prosecutors are expected to seek forfeiture of property or proceeds allegedly obtained through illegal activity. The company could also face additional commercial and reputational damage, particularly in countries that have tried to balance access to Huawei equipment against pressure from Washington.

A conviction would strengthen the U.S. government's argument that restrictions on Huawei respond to documented criminal conduct rather than simply to commercial rivalry or geopolitical distrust. It could also encourage prosecutors to pursue similar cases against other Chinese technology companies accused of sanctions violations, export-control violations or efforts to obtain restricted American technology.

The case could influence how banks, telecommunications operators and equipment suppliers assess their exposure to Huawei. Even where governments do not impose outright bans, a conviction could increase compliance costs and make companies more cautious about doing business with Huawei-related entities.

An acquittal would not necessarily reverse U.S. export controls or national-security restrictions. Those policies can be imposed on the basis of intelligence assessments, supply-chain concerns and strategic calculations that do not require a criminal conviction. But an acquittal could give Huawei and Beijing a powerful argument that Washington overstated or failed to prove its allegations.

It could also make future prosecutions more difficult if jurors reject the government's effort to connect years of transactions, corporate relationships and technology disputes into a single criminal conspiracy.

Huawei, however, is no longer the same company it was when Meng was arrested. It has spent years adapting to U.S. restrictions and repositioning itself as a pillar of China's technology strategy.