华裔知名沈晨律师成立联合律师事务所首发特刊：深度解读孟晚舟引渡司法程序
近年来，由于大家生活中接触到的新鲜事物愈发的广泛和多种多样，使得我们生活丰富多彩的同时，也会面临许多的突发的法律问题。
很多人生活在加拿大这片美丽的土地上时，会发现生活并不如想象中的如意。小到日常生活的一点一滴，大到人生的重要决定，总是会有一些麻烦事困扰着我们，由于对加国法律法规的不熟悉，语言和文化上的差异等各种各样的原因，最后会让自己陷入困境。
然而每当我们身处困境时，我们是否还总为找不到专业和可靠的帮助而发愁呢？
日前，由沈晨（Jake Shen），AdamSteven Boni和Alexander Morris三位优秀刑事律师联袂创立的BONI律师事务所正式成立了！Boni律师事务所是一个双语事务所，可以用中英双语向大家提供法律服务。
http://www.boniandcompany.com/
BONI律师事务所的三位律师相较与其它刑事律师而言有着非常独特的优势。
沈晨律师在成为执业律师以前曾在多伦多警察局及安省司法部服务多年。
Adam则在自己执业之前曾在加拿大联邦司法部任检控官多年。
这些经验让他们非常熟悉检控方及警方在监控和调查取证是的方法和思维习惯。正是这一优势，使得BONI律师团队在为当事人辩护时，总是可以从一些独特的角度寻找到决定性的线索来帮助当事人获取最好的结果。
除此之外，BONI律师事务所的三位律师，在毒品，凶杀，枪支等重大刑事案件的处理上更是有着极为丰富的经验。
沈晨律师在其多年法律系统内的工作经验深知许多华人同胞对于加拿大法律的认知是有所缺乏的。继而从今日起，BONI律师事务所将定期在轻松加拿大平台为华人读者开设BONI法律专栏，为大众解读身边事，同时普及加国法律。
而作为首发刊，沈晨律师也特别挑选了近期饱受大众关注的孟晚舟事件，为大家进行解读。
On May 8, 2018, Ms. Meng attended the Supreme Court in British Columbia for the purpose of his committal hearing. During Ms. Meng’s court appearance, her legal representatives raised several potential issues: double criminality, reliability of the evidence offered by the US and Canadian Charter of Rightsand Freedoms violations. Today, lawyers from Boni & Company will discussed the strength and weakness in each of the three issues.
2018年5月8日，孟晚舟女士出席不列颠哥伦比亚省最高法院对其进行引渡交付听证会。在孟女士出庭期间，她的代表律师提出了几个潜在的问题: 双重犯罪、加拿大执法部门在逮捕孟女士过程中可能存在的侵犯《加拿大人权和自由宪章》的地方。今天，BONI联合律师事务所的沈律师将和大家讨论一下这三个问题。
With respect to the double criminality issue, the double criminality rule is conduct‑based. It is not necessary that the Canadian offence described in the authority to proceed or the committal order to “match” the foreign offence for which the person is sought or surrendered in name or in terms ofits constituent elements; it is the essence of the offence that is important under the conduct‑based approach. In other words, it isnot necessary for the US criminal offence to have a corresponding Canadian criminal offence with the same offence name. It is also not necessary for a corresponding Canadian criminal offence to have the exact same elements of offence. All that is required is whether it can be established that the fugitive’s conduct constituted the listed offence in both Canadaand the US. Once this requirement issatisfied the double criminality is met. So, it is my opinion that the double criminality in Mrs. Meng’s case is not whether Mrs. Meng violated US sanction againstIran. The double criminality shouldbe whether Mrs. Meng’s conduct of intentionally misrepresenting facts to abank, and caused the bank to be exposed to financial risk. In other words, itis whether Mrs. Meng committed fraud as opposed to whether Mrs. Meng violated a US sanction againstIran.
加拿大的《引渡法》要求引渡申请国在引渡申请中所列的指控在加拿大也有相应的指控。比如引渡申请国要求当事人被引渡的原因是当事人在申请国涉嫌偷窃，那么盗窃在加拿大也必须是犯罪，引渡程序才会继续进行下去。这就是引渡程序中的双重犯罪规则。该规则是以行为为基础的。也就是说在引渡程序中，法庭不会看在引渡申请中列出的指控是否在加拿大有名称一致的罪行，也不会看引渡申请中的每一个指控的构成元素是否都能对应到加拿大类似罪行中的每一个构成元素。法庭只会考虑当事人的行为如果发生在加拿大是否构成犯罪。以孟女士的案子为例，法庭在考虑双重犯罪规则时不会考虑因为加拿大对伊朗没有制裁从而孟女士没有违反加拿大的法律，而是会考虑如果加拿大对伊朗有类似制裁的假设前提下，如果孟女士故意对加拿大的银行做虚假陈述，从而造成加拿大银行在不知情的情况下违反制裁的这种行为有没有构成欺诈。
In a media release, Huawei’s spokesperson raised an issue that the allegation against Mrs. Meng was simply nottrue. However, an extradition committal hearing is not a criminal trial. The extradition judge is limited to determining whether the evidence submitted atthe committal hearing reveals conduct that would justify committal for trial in Canada for the crime listedin the authority to proceed, if the crime had occurred in Canada. The judge’s role does not include any review of the foreign law. If the extradition judge concludes that the impugned conduct wouldamount to a criminal offence in Canadian law, the person sought must becommitted for extradition. Overall, the extradition judge’s evaluation of evidence is a restrained view of the rolein assessing the reliability of evidence. The extradition judge’s starting pointis that the requesting state’s certified evidence is presumptively reliable. This presumption may only be rebutted by showing fundamental inadequacies or frailties in the material relied on by the requesting state. It is only wherethe evidence supporting committal is so defective or appears so unreliable thatit would be dangerous or unsafe to act on it that the extradition judge is justified in refusing committal on this basis. So, as we can see, the threshold to rebut the presumption of evidence being reliable at the committal stage is very high. So,unless Mrs. Meng’s lawyer can present strong evidence that can significantly undermine the reliability of the evidence proffered by the US, the evidence will be treated asreliable. A simple claim of the allegation of untrue will not suffice.
在孟晚舟女士出庭后，华为的新闻发言人提出美国对孟女士的指控不实。但是，引渡听证会不是刑事审判。引渡法官的权力仅限于决定在引渡听证会上所提交的证据是否能够说明同样的行为如果发生在加拿大是否也构成犯罪。如果引渡法官裁定引渡申请国所提交的证据能够说明同样的行为如果发生在加拿大也会构成犯罪，那么引渡程序就必须进行下去。
引渡法官对引渡申请国提交证据的评估只局限于对对证据可靠性进行评估。在引渡程序中，一个很重要的假设前提就是引渡请求国所提交的证据都会被默认为是可靠的。只有在引渡请求国所依赖的证据中存在根本的不足或瑕疵，才能反驳这一假设。换句话说，只有在引渡申请国交付的证据中有严重缺陷或看起来极其不可靠，以至于采纳这些证据可能会造成危害的情况下，引渡法官才可以决定终止引渡程序。因此我们可以看到，在引渡听证会阶段，反驳证据是默认为可靠的这个前提假设是非常困难的。因此，除非孟女士的律师团队能够提供强有力的证据来显示美国提供的证据的可靠性有严重的缺陷，不然这些证据将被默认为是可靠的。仅仅是华为发言人口头指责是不够的。
Regarding the Charter violations, it is possible that the CBSA or RCMP detained Mrs. Meng atthe border in a manner that was in violation of section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects an individual from arbitrary detention. If so, it is likely that the Canadian law enforcement agencies subsequently violated Mrs. Meng’s section 10 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which would have entitled Mrs. Meng to be informed the reason of herdetention or arrest and her rights to a counsel. However, the facts surrounding how Mrs. Meng was detained and arrested were scarce. Therefore, it is very difficult to assess whether Mrs. Meng’s Charter rights were violated. To compound the matter further, an individual’s Charter rights protections were reduced in a border-crossing context. For example, an individual may be stopped by a law enforcement officer for a lengthy period of time at the border without being considered to be detained for the purpose of section 9 and 10 of the Charter. Hence, it is critical for Ms. Meng’s lawyer to discover what exactly transpired at the time when Mrs. Meng was at the Canadian border. Even if Mrs. Meng’s Charter rights were violated, the nextquestion is whether the violations are egregious enough to stay the proceeding.
加拿大边境局或皇家骑警在逮捕孟女士的过程中可能存在违反《加拿大人权和自由宪章》第9条的地方。《加拿大人权和自由宪章》第9条保护个人不受执法部门的任意拘捕。如果执法部门违反了《加拿大人权和自由宪章》第9条，通常也会违反《加拿大人权和自由宪章》下的第10条。该条要求执法人员在当事人被拘捕时要立即告知其被逮捕或拘留的原因，以及她有请律师及和律师通话的权利。然而，目前关于孟女士是如何被拘留和逮捕的证据很少。因此，很难评估孟女士的宪章权利是否受到侵犯。更复杂的是，按照加拿大最高法院先前的判例，《加拿大人权和自由宪章》的保护在出入境关口通常不适用。例如，一个人可能被一名执法人员在边界长时间拦截盘问而不会被认为她被拘禁或逮捕，从而不会触动《宪章》第9和第10条的保护。因此，对孟女士的律师来说，弄清孟女士在加拿大边境过境时时到底发生了什么是至关重要的。即使引渡法官裁定孟女士的《宪章》权力受到侵犯，引渡法官还需考虑另外一个问题：执法部门的违宪行为是否足以严重到让引渡程序终止。
从沈律师的解读中，我们可以发现专业的律师对于问题的看法更加的细致和有效。沈律师也曾和我们表示在过去多年的辩护工作中，多次接触华人案件需要对中文证据进行收集和解读，而沈律师精通中英双语，相信更是能为有需要的朋友们提供帮助。
最后，希望大家能够持续的关注BONI法律专栏，和我们分享你们想了解的新闻，学习更多专业的法律知识。
Toronto ON
M5P 1N7
