Huawei in US court: 'criminal enterprise' is a charge, not a verdict
US prosecutors accuse the Chinese group of organised crime, fraud and sanctions violations. Huawei denies everything – now evidence counts, not geopolitics.
In New York, a criminal trial has begun that reaches far beyond Huawei. US prosecutors accuse the Chinese technology group of organised criminal activity, fraud, theft of trade secrets and sanctions violations, among other things. The phrase «criminal enterprise» sounds like a verdict. Legally, it is initially part of the charge – Huawei denies the allegations, and no presumption of guilt applies.
What US prosecutors allege
The indictment expanded in 2020 by the US Department of Justice describes a pattern pursued over years. Huawei and several subsidiaries are alleged to have unlawfully obtained technology and confidential information from American companies, deceived business partners and concealed transactions in sanctioned states. The authorities base their case on the US RICO Act, which was originally created to prosecute organised criminal structures.
A RICO charge allows prosecutors to present various alleged acts as one connected system. The word «enterprise» denotes a legal connection; it does not mean that a company has already been finally convicted as criminal. The prosecution must prove every required element in court.
Huawei's defence
Huawei has pleaded not guilty. The group rejects the account and describes the case as a politically driven attempt to hold back a successful Chinese competitor. The defence is likely to attack individual allegations, questions of jurisdiction and the link between different corporate units.
The trial began after years of preliminary proceedings and geopolitical tensions. Earlier proceedings also concerned CFO Meng Wanzhou; her personal case ended with an agreement. That implies neither an acquittal nor a conviction of the company in the complex now being tried.
More than an ordinary business trial
Huawei is a key supplier of telecommunications equipment, network technology and smartphones. That is why the trial links criminal law with technology policy. The US has for years restricted the company's access to advanced chips and American technology. Several states have excluded or limited Huawei components from security-critical 5G networks.
These political measures and the criminal case rest on different legal bases. Export controls can be imposed on security grounds without criminal guilt having been proven. Conversely, a court must assess specific charges under the rules of criminal procedure, not the general strategic rivalry between Washington and Beijing.
Evidence, jurisdiction and time will be decisive
Many allegations date back years and concern activities in several countries. That complicates the presentation of evidence. Documents must be assessed, witnesses questioned and responsibilities assigned within a global group. Prosecutors must show which individuals acted, what knowledge they had and how individual transactions were connected.
The defence can argue that legitimate competition is being criminalised after the fact, or that the transactions lie outside US jurisdiction. A long trial is likely. Further years can pass between the charge, an interim ruling and a final judgment.
Why Switzerland has to pay attention
Swiss telecom companies and authorities procure technology within global supply chains. A US verdict could further influence Huawei's access to components, financing and markets. That affects prices, the choice of supplier and the maintenance of existing infrastructure. At the same time, procurement policy should not rest on buzzwords. It needs verifiable security requirements, supply chain analyses and rules that apply to all suppliers.
The trial will therefore examine two things: the specific criminal allegations against Huawei, and a court's ability to handle a geopolitically charged technology conflict according to the rules of evidence. Until a verdict is issued, «criminal enterprise» remains an allegation by the prosecution, not an established fact.
