Huawei faces Brooklyn criminal trial over alleged offenses spanning two decades

The criminal trial against Huawei began with opening statements in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York. U.S. prosecutors accuse the Chinese technology company and three of its subsidiaries of taking part, over nearly two decades, in a scheme that allegedly included fraud related to trade sanctions, intellectual property theft, and other offenses. These are allegations awaiting judicial resolution: the start of the proceedings does not establish the company’s guilt.

The charges include alleged efforts to mislead financial institutions about Huawei’s activities in Iran and North Korea, as well as the alleged theft of technology from U.S. companies. Prosecutors also maintain that the company allegedly laundered money and obstructed justice. According to information presented about the case, the Department of Justice has decided not to proceed with two of the four charges related to alleged sanctions violations. A total of 12 charges remain at issue in the proceedings.

Prosecutors allege a corporate pattern; Huawei denies it

In his opening statement, Department of Justice attorney Taylor Stout presented the case as a deliberate and sustained pattern, rather than a collection of independent incidents. Prosecutors maintain that the conduct attributed to Huawei was part of a corporate strategy.

The defense, led by Brian Heberlig, rejected that interpretation. It argues that the indictment brings together isolated incidents and individual actions without showing that the company had a criminal plan. Huawei has also argued that the U.S. government is grouping together distinct conduct and that the proceedings are politically motivated. These statements reflect the company’s position, not a conclusion by the court.

The dispute over how to interpret the evidence will be central to the trial. Prosecutors will have to substantiate their allegations before the jury; the defense has said it will challenge the credibility of some witnesses and dispute that their actions can be attributed to the organization as a whole.

An international case

Evidence expected to be presented includes a prior agreement involving Meng Wanzhou, Huawei’s chief financial officer, relating to statements about the company’s operations in Iran. Meng is not on trial in these proceedings. In 2021, she reached an agreement with U.S. authorities that ended the case against her and allowed her to return to China.

One of the prosecution’s first witnesses, Parham Baheshti, testified about a proposal that Huawei allegedly presented in Iran in 2009 to analyze internet user behavior. This is testimony in an ongoing proceeding; its scope and credibility will have to be assessed alongside the rest of the evidence.

The case dates back to charges first brought in 2019 and is unfolding amid tensions between Washington and Beijing over trade and technology. Huawei already faces U.S. restrictions limiting its access to certain products and technologies of U.S. origin. The trial is a criminal proceeding separate from those trade measures: its outcome should not be confused with the restrictions already in force.

What this could mean for companies

For companies with international operations, the case highlights the legal risks associated with sanctions, information provided to banks, and the protection of trade secrets. However, the allegations in this case do not amount to a judicial determination about Huawei, nor do they allow the conclusion that other companies face the same risk.

A conviction could result in financial penalties, but the amount and effects have not been determined. The federal law invoked by prosecutors provides for corporate fines and allows them, under certain conditions, to seek twice the amount of the benefits obtained unlawfully. The United States has not specified what penalties it would seek, and the outcome will depend on the verdict and the court’s subsequent decisions.

The trial could last weeks or months. Its outcome will matter not only for Huawei, but also for the debate over how U.S. laws apply to large foreign companies. For now, the decisive question is a judicial one: whether prosecutors can prove that the alleged conduct constituted a corporate scheme, as they maintain, or whether the defense’s position—that these were isolated incidents—prevails.