Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Gov't Seeks To Keep Megaupload Assets Because Kim Dotcom Is a Fugitive

Posted by timothy on from the them-as-has-gits-by-law dept.

mrspoonsi writes with this excerpt from Billboard: 'On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Justice told a Virginia federal judge that Kim Dotcom and cohorts have no business challenging the seizure of an estimated $67 million in assets because the Megaupload founder is evading prosecution. The government brought criminal charges against Dotcom in early 2012, but he's been holed up in New Zealand awaiting word on whether he'll be extradited. The government got antsy and this past July, brought a civil complaint for forfeiture in rem, a maneuver to firmly establish a hold over money from bank accounts around the world, luxury cars, big televisions, watches, artwork and other property allegedly gained by Megaupload in the course of crimes. Dotcom is fighting the seizures by questioning the government's basis for asserting a crime, saying "there is no such crime as secondary criminal copyright infringement," as well as challenging how the seized assets are tied to the charges against Dotcom. But according to the U.S. government, Dotcom doesn't get the pleasure of even making the arguments. In a motion to strike, the government cites the doctrine of fugitive disentitlement, which bars a person from using the resources of the court if that person is aware of prosecution and is evading it.

17 of 173 comments (clear)

  1. Wait what? by jythie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, because he is exercising his rights as a foreign citizen living in another country and going through the legally established international process for determining extradition, he is a 'fugitive' and thus his assets are fair game?

    This strikes me as a blatant misuse fugitive disentitlement which is more intended for situations where someone is on the run and unlocatable or in a hostile country with no extradition treaty. NZ has a treaty and Dotcom (wow I hate that name) is going through the appeals system. That is not really 'evading' since evasion implies extrajudicial methods.... it strikes me more as the JoD wanting to circumvent international law when things do not immediately go their way.

    1. Re:Wait what? by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So, because he is exercising his rights as a foreign citizen living in another country and going through the legally established international process for determining extradition, he is a 'fugitive' and thus his assets are fair game?

      This is theft, plain and simple, just like "civil" asset forfeiture.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    2. Re:Wait what? by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Informative

      The US Government routinely seizes the assets of its adversaries, even US Citizens in order to force them to appear in court. Just like this... They take your money, knowing full well they have no right to... but, to dispute it, you have to show up in court or testify about yourself in such a way that could lead to further prosecution.

      Remember how they busted Al Capone? Tax evasion? They knew for a fact how he got his money, but they also knew that to prove he was innocent he'd have to admit to how he got his money. So, despite violating his rights, the spirit of the law, and perverting the justice system. they got him anyway. Win at all costs...

    3. Re: Wait what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I am a legal layman; but that is what struck me. We have an extradition treaty with the Kiwis. Based on our 'enthusiastic' diplomatic style it's probably even the one we wanted.

      To assert that somebody currently in extradition proceedings is a 'fugitive' is either to claim that the terms of extradition of that country are total bullshit, or basically the same as saying that appealing a conviction is a subtype of prison escape attempt.

    4. Re:Wait what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Government needs to follow their own laws otherwise what's the whole point?

    5. Re:Wait what? by Noah+Haders · · Score: 4, Insightful

      correct. civil asset forfeiture (what this is) is legal thuggery. at least in this case there's at least some relation to an international prosecution, as opposed to the sherriff deputy in east dumfuck taking your cash at a traffic stop.

    6. Re:Wait what? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes. He's a criminal and an asshole, but the government is responding with criminal assholery.

      The man runs what amounts to organized crime as a conspiracy supporting international copyright infringement in violation of domestic laws and trade agreements in force in many countries. He runs this from New Zealand. We have legal processes providing for the extradition and seizing of assets of an international criminal through agreements with the country within which the criminal resides in.

      In this case, it seems the US government wants to dismiss all those legal processes and just throw a huge tantrum. We can't get him extradited? Well guess what? He's not liable to us. He doesn't belong in court; he's not a fugitive because he was never in the US after being charged, has no reason to be in the US, and isn't a US citizen. He's not legally required to show up in US court until the country he's a citizen of claims so; if he's a German citizen in NZ, and NZ extradites him, Germany can throw a huge hissy fit.

      This whole thing is woven with conflicting legal implications (NZ may be legally allowed or even obligated to extradite him) and potential diplomatic incidents. The US government is trying to violate all the rules.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    7. Re:Wait what? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Since the police make the decisions, and benefit from the forfeiture directly, yes, we start by blaming the police and publicizing all incidents and thus apply pressure to the politicians to stop this nonsense. No one is going to say the police are wrong seizing 100 tons of coke and coke covered $100M in a single bust. Grabbing $8K from granny or some business person, yes, and they deserve all the heat they get from that outright theft (you can call it whatever you want, it's still theft)

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    8. Re:Wait what? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Unless he uploaded content himself, he's really only running a system that allows for that, much like AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon allow for it by allowing connections to MegaUpload. Just think if they'd blocked MegaUpload's servers, they certainly have the ability. Much like guns, cars, or the internet, MegaUpload could be used both legally and illegally. If the gov has proof that he actually committed copyright infringement, claimed in the civil action, why don't they charge him with that? Perhaps because they have no proof?

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  2. I think this nails it by MiniMike · · Score: 5, Interesting

    FTFA, Dotcom's lawyer:

    The issue is the government basically is looking to use the fugitive disentitlement doctrine as procedural mechanism to avoid arguing merits of criminal action.

    The case seems to have no merit, they're probably reluctant to bring it to a trial. I think they were probably hoping for a plea in the first place, to avoid a trial and the associated oversight, and didn't think it would go this way or drag out this long.

  3. Business as usual for US justice by bradley13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google "asset forfeiture" and weep.

    Asset forfeiture is a standard trick in the bag of US justice. They take your assets, then you then have to prove your innocence to get them back. The fact that this goes against the US Constitution, as well as international law? Irrelevant, I mean, what are you gonna do, call the police? When the police are the thieves, that's not very useful...

    The US is a police state pretending to be a democracy. Lot's of people haven't been stepped on yet, so they can continue ignoring this unpleasant reality.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:Business as usual for US justice by OzPeter · · Score: 3, Informative

      Google "asset forfeiture" and weep.

      Reading Stop and seize makes for a scary experience.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:Business as usual for US justice by Anon-Admin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Schlumberger made, tested, and certified the part that failed. Releasing all the oil into the Gulf. Yet everyone blames the company that was using the part as it was designed to be used.

      Yet no one even seems to know who they are.

    3. Re:Business as usual for US justice by DutchUncle · · Score: 5, Informative

      An introduction, for the lazy:

      http://www.newyorker.com/magaz...
      Under civil forfeiture, Americans who haven't been charged with wrongdoing can be stripped of their cash, cars, and even homes.

      http://gothamist.com/2014/01/1...
      How The NYPD's Use Of Civil Forfeiture Robs Innocent New Yorkers
      Any arrest in New York City can trigger a civil forfeiture case if money or property is found on or near a defendant, regardless of the reasons surrounding the arrest or its final disposition.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10...
      “Who takes your money before they prove that you’ve done anything wrong with it?”
      The federal government does.
      Using a law designed to catch drug traffickers, racketeers and terrorists by tracking their cash, the government has gone after run-of-the-mill business owners and wage earners without so much as an allegation that they have committed serious crimes.

    4. Re:Business as usual for US justice by Zantetsuken · · Score: 4, Informative

      No - BP was under fire because when the part (or multiple components) failed, alarms went off. The oil rig team in charge of responding to those alarms went "God those things are annoying and nothing is ever wrong when they go off, just disable the alarms."

      The next time the alarms were supposed to go off, they could not because they were disabled, so nobody responded to an alarm that did not sound.

      http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/23/deepwater-horizon-oil-rig-alarms

      Also, congrats on getting me to log-in for something worth of commenting on for the first time in ages.

  4. Re:Other fugitives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Those are all little fish. Let's go for some important criminals.
        Henry Kissinger: The Trial of Henry Kissinger
        George W. Bush: The Bush Administration’s Liability for 269 War Crimes
        Richard Cheney: CheneyWatch

  5. Short answer ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The US has more or less been co-opted to be the enforcers of the copyright cartels, and are willing to bend their (and anybody else's laws) to have a "prosecute at any cost and to hell with the law" mentality.

    Since they've been unable to successfully argue in court that he should be extradited, they're going for the strong arm tactic of property theft.

    They're basically putting the cart before the horse, and saying "he's guilty because we say so, and since he won't come here and confess, we'll just take all his stuff".

    From the sounds of it, they haven't accused him of a crime which actually exists, since there is no statute.

    So everything else is just bullshit, lies, and posturing.

    I can't wait until some foreign court rules that all of some American official's stuff should be siezed because he's been tried in absentia for war crimes.

    Because Americans would scream and go "yarg, we're not under your jurisdiction" despite frequently doing the same thing.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.