What did Ren say to the FBI in New York in 2007? Wigand sent the old conversation to the jury for the criminal case.

The founder of the Wigand spoke to FBI officials in a hotel in New York in

1. That meeting, which was held almost two decades ago, returned to the Federal Court of the Eastern District of New York on 15 October — this time, describing the former FBI head Timothy Lucey, who was standing in the witness stand, and the audience of the jury in which the criminal case was being tried by China.

According to the source,The Luthor's summary of the trial report on October 17th.Luci briefed the Tribunal on the proceedings of his meeting with Ren Zhei in July

1. (b) The fact that China used to film the telecommunications equipment of its competitors without authorization for its employees, but different views were expressed on the interpretation of the IPR infringement; He also stated that China had not directly traded with Iranian enterprises. The prosecution brought these old words to court, apparently not to repeat a history of scientific and technological entrepreneurs and law enforcement officials, but to compare the knowledge that China had acquired at the top with the material that had subsequently appeared in the trade.

Another line of evidence was from the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the United States Department of the Treasury on the same day. The trial referred to voluntary disclosures made by China-associated companies in 2010 regarding the possible resale of products to Iran and Syria, as well as statements made by company executives under oath in the United States Congress in

1. What links exist between the two points of time and when management becomes aware of the risks involved is at the heart of the jury ' s understanding of the dispute over the sanction transaction.

China, for its part, could not be a general manufacturer relying on the public relations calibre of government to sell communications equipment to the world. (b) Communication infrastructure linkages, cybersecurity and national strategic competition; The United States prosecution now attempts to prove that part of the alleged conduct is not an accidental cross-border movement of individual employees, but involves the organization, rules and incentives at the company level.Lutherans also quoted court materials) The cash incentive arrangement for the collection of technical intelligence from competitors at Headquarters was discussed. Under this accusatory structure, the incentive system itself may also provide a clue as to how companies organize their market competition.

It must be seen that two logics of power are colliding in court. In China, China, as a symbol of its long-standing history of technological breakthroughs, is prone to public criticism of companies being directed towards national positions; In United States courts, the prosecution needs to implement each charge to conduct, documents and testimony that can be judged by a jury. Criminal responsibility is pending before a jury, but these testimonies have left an important issue beyond the scope of branding: can science and technology enterprises, which have gained great political support in the name of the rise of the nation, be subject to independent judicial scrutiny for their business conduct?

For many readers concerned about the relations between the CCP and business power, the decisive message is not whether or not there is a personal appearance at the door of the court, but rather what was said in 2007, the 2010 compliance document and the 2012 testimony of the Congress are now on the same timeline. The longer the business is in, the harder it is to be balanced by the word “smuggling” by the propaganda department, the more the business is to say and the documents left behind.