Huawei rejects U.S. theft and Iran sanctions case as three-month federal trial opens

Huawei Technologies has gone on trial in U.S. federal court nearly eight years after American prosecutors first charged the Chinese telecommunications group, bringing a sprawling criminal case involving alleged trade-secret theft, racketeering, bank fraud and sanctions violations before a Brooklyn jury. In opening statements, the U.S. Department of Justice portrayed Huawei as an enterprise that used unlawful methods over roughly two decades to accelerate its global expansion, while the company’s lawyers said the government was transforming routine business disputes and misconduct by individual employees into an overarching criminal conspiracy that never existed.

The trial represents an extraordinary escalation of a dispute that already transformed technology relations between Washington and Beijing. Huawei’s networking equipment remains heavily restricted in the United States, American suppliers require government approval for many exports to the company, and the earlier arrest of Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou in Canada created a major diplomatic dispute among the United States, China and Canada.

Huawei has pleaded not guilty. China’s Foreign Ministry said on September 10 that Beijing opposes what it described as U.S. suppression and containment of Chinese companies and supports their efforts to protect legitimate rights and interests, while the trial itself is expected to last around three months.

What are U.S. prosecutors alleging Huawei did over the course of two decades?

Prosecutors accuse Huawei of conspiring to obtain intellectual property from American companies and using those assets to strengthen its position in telecommunications. The government told jurors it will present evidence involving five U.S. companies, including allegations that Huawei sought Cisco router source code and that an employee improperly obtained a robotic arm used by T-Mobile to test mobile phones.

The case subsequently expanded beyond trade secrets into racketeering, which allows prosecutors to argue that separate alleged acts formed part of a continuing criminal enterprise. The government is also pursuing claims linked to Huawei’s activities in Iran and alleges the company misrepresented aspects of those dealings to financial institutions while U.S. sanctions were in force.

These remain allegations, and prosecutors must prove the criminal counts beyond a reasonable doubt. The breadth of the case is likely to be both a strength and a challenge because jurors will have to decide whether years of disparate conduct demonstrate one coordinated enterprise or unrelated events assembled into a larger narrative.

How is Huawei defending itself against the racketeering and trade-secret allegations?

Huawei’s lawyers told jurors that the case concerns competition rather than conspiracy and innovation rather than systematic theft. Defence attorney Brian Heberlig argued that prosecutors have selected isolated events and are presenting normal activities of a global technology company as evidence of a single criminal scheme.

The defence says certain incidents involved individual employees acting without management approval and that Huawei took corrective action when it became aware of misconduct. It cited an incident involving unauthorised photography of a Fujitsu device as an example of conduct by one employee who was subsequently dismissed, while arguing that such episodes do not prove senior leadership directed a company-wide theft strategy.

This defence places corporate intent at the centre of the trial. Prosecutors will need to link individual acts to organisational knowledge and objectives, while Huawei will try to persuade jurors that a multinational company cannot automatically be criminally responsible for every improper act by its employees.

Why is Iran central to a case usually associated with Huawei’s technology competition?

The original 2018 indictment included allegations that Huawei misrepresented its relationship with Skycom, a company operating in Iran, allowing transactions to move through the U.S. financial system despite American sanctions. Reuters had reported in 2012 and 2013 on close links between Huawei and Skycom and on proposed sales of embargoed Hewlett-Packard equipment to an Iranian telecommunications operator.

Prosecutors now allege that Huawei concealed aspects of its Iranian activity and improperly used U.S.-dollar clearing. The defence says banks knew Huawei conducted business in Iran and argues there is insufficient evidence that the company believed the relevant dollar transactions violated U.S. sanctions law.

The issue therefore intersects corporate disclosure, banking regulation and foreign policy. It also ensures the trial will be watched closely during an active U.S.-Iran conflict in which sanctions and control over Iranian economic activity have again become major American strategic tools.

How does Meng Wanzhou’s 2018 arrest connect with the trial now underway in New York?

Meng, Huawei’s chief financial officer and the daughter of founder Ren Zhengfei, was detained in Vancouver in December 2018 on a U.S. extradition request associated with the Iran-related allegations. She spent nearly three years contesting extradition before reaching a deferred prosecution arrangement that allowed her to return to China in 2021.

Charges against Meng were later dismissed in accordance with that agreement, so she is not standing trial as a defendant in the current corporate case. Reuters reported, however, that admissions she made under the deferred prosecution agreement are expected to be introduced as evidence against Huawei.

Her detention became far larger than an ordinary white-collar case because China detained Canadians Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor soon afterward, producing a years-long diplomatic confrontation. The corporate trial therefore revives an episode that shaped relations across three countries.

Why does the Huawei case still matter when the company has already been restricted in the United States?

American restrictions substantially reduced Huawei’s access to U.S. markets and advanced technology, but they did not eliminate the company globally. Huawei remains an important supplier of telecommunications infrastructure and smartphones and has become increasingly important in China’s effort to develop domestic artificial-intelligence chips and reduce dependence on American semiconductor technology.

A criminal conviction could reinforce the U.S. argument that restrictions on Huawei are based on more than strategic competition, while an acquittal on major counts would strengthen claims that Washington has mixed national-security policy with commercial containment. Either result could therefore influence how other governments assess restrictions on Chinese telecommunications suppliers.

The timing is also notable because U.S.-China competition has increasingly moved from 5G networks into artificial intelligence, semiconductors and advanced computing. Huawei now sits near the centre of each of those industrial contests.

What are the key takeaways from the opening of Huawei’s U.S. criminal trial?

• Huawei Technologies has gone on trial in federal court in Brooklyn almost eight years after U.S. prosecutors first indicted the company.
• Prosecutors allege a long-running scheme involving trade-secret theft, racketeering, bank fraud and sanctions-related conduct involving Iran.
• Huawei has pleaded not guilty and says prosecutors are combining unrelated events into a conspiracy that never existed.
• The government says evidence will include allegations involving U.S. companies such as Cisco Systems and T-Mobile.
• Iran-related allegations focus partly on Huawei’s historical relationship with Skycom and transactions routed through the U.S. financial system.
• Former CFO Meng Wanzhou is not a defendant in the trial, but Reuters reports that admissions from her earlier deferred prosecution agreement are expected to be used as evidence.
• China rejects what it describes as U.S. suppression of Huawei and says Chinese companies should be able to protect their legitimate interests.
• The trial is expected to continue for approximately three months.

Could the Huawei verdict meaningfully change U.S.–China technology relations after years of restrictions?

The relationship is already so deeply shaped by national-security restrictions that one verdict is unlikely to restore Huawei’s old access to American technology or reverse broader export controls. Washington’s semiconductor and telecommunications policies now extend well beyond the original Huawei case and are embedded in a much larger strategic competition with China.

The trial can nevertheless influence the political foundation supporting those restrictions. A strong prosecution victory would give U.S. officials additional evidence for arguing that Huawei’s problems are rooted in alleged corporate conduct rather than nationality or industrial rivalry alone, while a substantial acquittal could provide Beijing with a powerful argument that years of punitive treatment exceeded what the evidence justified.

For Huawei itself, the courtroom battle is therefore about more than fines or legal liability. It is an attempt to challenge the narrative that has defined the company’s relationship with Western governments for nearly a decade.