China trying to cover up warning Bank was being used to finance terror

This case seems to get more outrageous by the minute.

You might recall that the government of China is pressuring Prime Minister Netanyahu to prevent an Israeli intelligence officer from testifying about the involvement of the Bank of China in financing the Tel Aviv suicide bombing that murdered 16-year old Floridian Daniel Wultz HY"D (May God Avenge his blood). Wultz succumbed to injuries sustained in a Tel Aviv suicide bombing in April 2006, while he and his father were visiting for Passover. You may recall that a 'Palestinian' terror leader referred to Wultz as "the best target we can dream of."

The government of China is the majority shareholder in the Bank of China, so the lawsuit - which has been brought in the United States - is essentially against the Chinese government.

Now, a court transcript from New York seems to show that the government of China pushed the Bank of China to deny that it had been informed by the same Israeli intelligence officer in 2005 that it was being used to finance terror. 

The court transcript from a hearing on Friday before US District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin in Manhattan indicated that at some later point, the Bank of China was in possession of an internal Chinese government letter recommending that the various agencies involved in the issue deny that the 2005 meeting had occurred.

The implied legal purpose of such a denial would be for the Bank of China to deny that the Chinese government or the bank had any prior notice from Israel, other than the lawsuit itself, that the bank was being used as a money-laundering hub for terrorist financing for Islamic Jihad and Hamas.

If such a denial could be pulled off, then even if the bank was being used by Islamic Jihad and Hamas, it could be difficult or impossible to prove the bank had any criminal intent.

Another reason the bank and China would have wanted to deny the meeting’s occurrence would be to block Israeli intelligence official Uzi Shaya from testifying in the case about what happened at the meeting.

Previously, Shurat HaDin – Israel Law Center head Nitsana Dershan-Leitner told the Post that she could be compelled by the court to testify that the government broke its promise to offer Shaya (she referred to him only as the witness, but his name appears in the public record), as the key witness, to testify about having put China and the bank on notice at the 2005 meeting.

...

At the hearing, Bank of China lawyer Mitchell Berger still protested that no one from the bank was present at the meeting and that the bank had no record of the meeting.

Berger and lawyer Lanier Saperstein were forced, however, to admit that the 2005 meeting took place, whether a bank representative attended or not.

Also, the lawyers appeared uncomfortable explaining the letter suggesting that the meeting’s occurrence be denied and the fact exploited by the plaintiff’s lawyer Lee Wolosky – that the Chinese government is the majority shareholder of the bank.

Based on the majority ownership, arguments could be made that if China was on notice, then the bank was also on notice, or should have been.

I must be missing something here. Wultz was an American citizen. His parents are American citizens. This case is pending in an American court. It's no secret that the Chinese government is pressuring Bibi not to let Shaya testify. Why is there no pushback from the US government? Why isn't the US government pushing Bibi to let Shaya testify? Isn't our alliance with the US still more valuable than our trade relations with China?

What am I missing?