Huawei Trial Begins as US Tests Its RICO Case

The Huawei trial entered jury selection in Brooklyn on September 8, putting a long-running US racketeering, sanctions and trade-secrets prosecution before a federal jury. Huawei has pleaded not guilty and denies wrongdoing; every accusation remains an allegation unless prosecutors prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Key takeaways

Jury selection began in the Eastern District of New York before US District Judge Ann Donnelly.
The government alleges racketeering, wire fraud, money laundering, sanctions-related conduct, obstruction and theft of trade secrets.
Huawei says the government’s overarching narrative is false and has challenged parts of the case as vague or extraterritorial.
Reuters reported that prosecutors narrowed the trial by dropping two counts and one alleged trade-secret episode shortly before jury selection.

The Associated Press and Reuters independently reported the opening, while a September 4 court filing described by Fierce Network detailed the last-minute narrowing of the prosecution. The Justice Department’s charging release and superseding indictment remain the primary record for the allegations.

Everyone else is reporting that a major Chinese technology company is on trial; we are explaining what a RICO case requires, what prosecutors removed, and why an indictment is not a finding of guilt.

What started in the Huawei trial

Jury selection is the process of choosing the citizens who will hear evidence and decide whether prosecutors have met their burden. It is the beginning of the trial, not a verdict and not evidence that any allegation is true.

Reuters reported that the proceeding is expected to last about three months. Potential jurors received detailed questionnaires that included questions about views of China and Iran, reflecting the geopolitical context surrounding the evidence.

Huawei is one of the world’s largest suppliers of telecommunications equipment and has expanded into smartphones, cloud systems and semiconductors. Its commercial scale makes the case consequential, but its market position does not change the legal standard.

Question	Verified status at opening
Court	US District Court, Eastern District of New York
Judge	Ann M. Donnelly
Stage	Jury selection began September 8, 2026
Huawei plea	Not guilty
Government burden	Proof beyond a reasonable doubt
Expected duration	About three months, according to Reuters

What US prosecutors allege

The Justice Department’s 2020 release described a superseding indictment accusing Huawei and several entities of participating in a racketeering conspiracy. The government said the alleged conduct involved attempts to obtain technology from US companies through deception, employee recruitment, confidentiality breaches and other methods.

Prosecutors also alleged that Huawei concealed aspects of business conducted through Skycom in Iran and made false statements about the relationship. Reuters reported that the current case includes allegations involving Iran-related transactions, wire fraud, money laundering and obstruction.

These statements describe the prosecution theory. They should not be rewritten as established facts. The Justice Department itself states that charges are allegations and that defendants are presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

The trade-secret part of the case spans technology such as router source code, antennas and robotic testing, according to the charging release. The government alleges that obtaining such information reduced development cost and time. Huawei disputes the accusations.

Why racketeering changes the structure

RICO, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, allows prosecutors to argue that separate acts formed a pattern connected to an enterprise. In practical terms, the jury is not asked only whether one transaction occurred. It must evaluate the charged enterprise, the alleged pattern and each defendant’s legally required connection to it.

That breadth can help prosecutors present conduct across years and locations as one case. It can also create a difficult proof problem because jurors must distinguish entities, time periods, alleged predicates and the evidence supporting each one.

A sprawling narrative is not enough. Prosecutors still have to prove the elements attached to the counts that remain, and Huawei can challenge the relevance, admissibility and interpretation of the evidence.

The government narrowed its case

Fierce Network reported that a September 4 filing said prosecutors would not proceed at trial on Counts Eleven and Twelve of the April 2026 indictment. It also said the government removed one alleged trade-secret episode involving an unnamed company as a racketeering predicate.

The report counted 12 of 14 counts remaining for trial. Because counts and predicates serve different functions, readers should avoid treating every removed allegation as if it were a separate acquittal. Prosecutors can streamline a presentation without resolving the surviving counts.

The narrower case may make the jury’s task easier by reducing the number of episodes. It may also remove evidence the government once considered useful to its overall pattern theory. The significance will depend on the judge’s instructions and the proof actually admitted.

Huawei’s defence and denial

AP reported that Huawei’s lawyers had sought dismissal, arguing that allegations were too vague, impermissibly extraterritorial or insufficiently tied to domestic wire and bank fraud. Those arguments did not end the case before jury selection, but they show the legal boundaries Huawei wants the court to enforce.

Reuters quoted a Huawei spokesperson saying the government’s overarching narrative was demonstrably false. Huawei has pleaded not guilty and denied wrongdoing. China has also criticised the prosecution as part of a campaign against Chinese technology companies.

A fair report must include those positions without deciding which side is right. The trial exists to test the contested claims through evidence, cross-examination, legal rulings and a jury decision.

The defence may also ask jurors to separate old commercial disputes from criminal conduct. Fierce Network noted that one removed predicate related to a dispute that had previously been settled in civil litigation. A civil settlement alone neither proves nor disproves a different criminal charge.

Why the Huawei trial matters to technology markets

The case began during an earlier phase of US-China technology conflict, when Huawei’s telecom equipment and access to US components dominated policy debates. By 2026, the competitive field also includes AI accelerators, advanced manufacturing and cloud infrastructure.

Huawei has become more important to China’s domestic semiconductor ambitions as export controls restrict access to some US-designed chips and chipmaking technology. That context is useful, but it cannot be used as proof of the criminal allegations.

For readers following the hardware contest, Lapaas Voice’s guide to the global semiconductor supply chain explains the manufacturing chokepoints, while its report on Nvidia’s China-chip denial shows how quickly policy claims can affect product narratives.

A conviction could strengthen US arguments for additional financial or trade restrictions, but it would not automatically determine every future policy step. An acquittal would resolve the charged criminal counts but would not itself repeal export controls or erase national-security policy disputes.

What evidence will matter

The strongest evidence is likely to be contemporaneous corporate records, bank communications, contracts, testimony from people involved and authenticated communications. Jurors will need to assess whether documents show the intent required by each charge, not merely that business relationships existed.

Evidence involving multiple subsidiaries will require careful attribution. A statement or transaction linked to one entity does not automatically establish the knowledge or intent of every other entity. Corporate structure is therefore a proof issue, not background decoration.

The court will also determine what evidence jurors are permitted to consider and for what purpose. Some material may be admitted to prove one element but not another. Headlines that collapse all allegations into a single claim will miss those distinctions.

Readers should watch for the final jury instructions. They translate statutory language into the questions jurors must answer and will show how the judge defines the enterprise, pattern and intent requirements in this specific case.

What the opening does and does not prove

The Huawei trial opening proves only that the surviving charges have reached jury selection. It does not prove Huawei committed racketeering, stole trade secrets or violated sanctions; those are disputed allegations that must be established with admissible evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The first weeks may produce dramatic testimony, but the correct unit of analysis remains the count and its legal elements. A damaging document may be important yet still fail to establish a complete offence. Conversely, a mundane chain of records can become significant when it shows knowledge, control and intent.

News consumers should distinguish three categories: the government’s allegations, Huawei’s response and findings made by the judge or jury. Only the third category carries adjudicated legal weight.

The case also demonstrates why long-running corporate prosecutions are difficult to summarise. Events span jurisdictions and decades, individuals and subsidiaries change roles, and earlier civil or diplomatic episodes can overlap without resolving the criminal questions.

What happens next

After a jury is selected, lawyers will make opening statements and prosecutors will begin presenting witnesses and exhibits. Huawei can cross-examine those witnesses and later present its own evidence, although a criminal defendant is not required to prove innocence.

The judge may issue rulings that narrow the evidence or counts further. If the case reaches deliberations, jurors must consider each count under the written instructions rather than decide whether they generally approve of Huawei, China or US technology policy.

Any verdict may be followed by post-trial motions and appeals. That means the September 8 opening is an important procedural milestone, but not the final word on a case that has already lasted years.

FAQs

Has Huawei been found guilty in the US racketeering case?

No. Huawei has pleaded not guilty, and jury selection only began on September 8, 2026. The charges remain allegations.

What does RICO mean in the Huawei trial?

RICO is a US law used to prosecute an alleged pattern of specified crimes connected to an enterprise. Prosecutors must prove the required elements, not simply show several disputes or transactions.

What charges were dropped before the trial?

Fierce Network reported that prosecutors would not proceed on two counts and removed one alleged trade-secret episode as a racketeering predicate. The remaining case still includes multiple counts.