Slashdot Mirror
US Seizure of Kim Dotcom's Assets Will Stand, Says Appeals Court (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday in favor of the American government's seizure of a large number of Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom's overseas assets. Seized items include millions of dollars in various seized bank accounts in Hong Kong and New Zealand, multiple cars, four jet skis, the Dotcom mansion, several luxury cars, two 108-inch TVs, three 82-inch TVs, a $10,000 watch, and a photograph by Olaf Mueller worth over $100,000. After years of delay, in December 2015, Dotcom was finally ordered to be extradited to the United States to face criminal charges. But his appeal is set to be heard before the High Court in Auckland on August 29. In its court filings, prosecutors argued that because Dotcom had not appeared to face the charges against him in the United States, he is therefore susceptible to "fugitive disentitlement." That legal theory posits that if a defendant has fled the country to evade prosecution, he or she cannot make a claim to the assets that the government wants to seize under civil forfeiture. But as the Dotcom legal team claimed, the U.S. can neither use its legal system to seize assets abroad nor can Dotcom be considered a fugitive if he has never set foot in the United States. However, the 4th Circuit disagreed: "Because the statute must apply to people with no reason to come to the United States other than to face charges, a "sole" or "principal" purpose test cannot stand. The principal reason such a person remains outside the United States will typically be that they live elsewhere. A criminal indictment gives such a person a reason to make the journey, and the statute is aimed at those who resist nevertheless." Civil forfeiture in the United States allows law enforcement to seize one's assets if they are believed to be illegally acquired -- even without filing any criminal charges.
Amazing to think that US civil forfeiture laws apply even if the alleged crimes were committed by a German/Finnish citizen, living in New Zealand.
Acts of the legislature that violate the constitution are not laws at all. They are acts of usurpation.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
they use civil forfeiture to seize the Clinton Foundation/CGI assets. Until then, not so much.
The law has no clothes. Sometimes the court is contemptible.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
I really have a hard time taking sides in this one.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The problem is most of what they do the other big shot caller countries also do, and while they will squabble with each other over wealth and territory, it is not beyond them to band together to squash upstarts making inroads into their dominion (which DotCom and his cronies could be said to have.)
The consequences of this are far more widespread. Given US forfeiture within AND without the country the US Dollar should no longer be considered a trustworthy currency (while they can confiscate anything they want, USDs explicitly allow that since they are considered property of the US Government loaned to an individual as a promissary note of debt, which can be revoked at any time as they themselves will often state. Especially in regards to pennies being used for (more than their face value as) scrap metal.)
At this point you don't just need to emigrate away from the US (if a citizen), or avoid doing business with Americans (if a foreigner), but you also have to watch out for their extra-territorial policing whether under the guise of the UN, or under the excuse of their own Divine Mandate.
Q: Can they take Polanski's assets too?
A: Obviously not. Copyright violation is to some rogue agencies a far more heinous crime than violently raping a child and fleeing the country to escape justice.
It's utterly ridiculous how overblown this "war against piracy" is.
I am really surprised we haven't seen US citizens taken abroad by ISIS or some middle eastern country and held trial for breaking their laws while in the US or Europe or some other place.
This gives them every ounce of legal justification they would need.
If the US can charge and extradite foreign citizens whom never set foot or attacked the nation in any way, shape, or form to stand trial, then they give other nations that same authorization.
Dotcom is outside of the United States and beyond the control of the district court. No order of the district court can be binding on him because he is ultimately not in the hands of the district court. He is subject to the control of the courts of New Zealand and Hong Kong.
See Republic National Bank of Miami v. United States, 506 U.S. 80, 87 (1992).
The district court's forfeiture order therefore merely advises the courts of a foreign sovereign that (in the district court's view under the laws of the United States) the United States should have title to the assets. Those courts, of course, with control of the property and with the authority vested in them by their own sovereigns, remain free to revise, overturn, or refuse recognition to the judgment of the district court..
In fact, the district court recognized that the foreign courts "may or may not" register its order and that "New Zealand courts may continue to litigate the issue of whether the assets will be forfeited. The government also concedes that "even with a valid forfeiture order, the fugitive's property may suffer no adverse effect."
So all assets of everyone can be seized.
Because the US can lay charges against ANYONE in the world, and then seize their assets anywhere because they refuse to come to the US to face charges. That would make a mockery of jurisdiction and international treaties. They're only charges, US police can charge anyone with anything, it is just a piece of paper for them.
This is the 5 eyes taint. 5 eyes countries turned their spy machines on their own people, and their governments are shaped by that surveillance. A choice here, a leak there, a whisper, a threat. Notice how 5 eyes looks more and more like post war Eastern Block countries of the Soviet Union.
Its beyond wonderland that American's allow their government to prosecute citizens of other countries and take foreign wealth and assign the proceeds to a US court. - And foreign governments allow their citizens to prosecuted and abused this way.
Is no one concerned that this sort of national thievery will lead to additional aggression against the US? This is worse than WW 1 reparations because its simply claimed a not insignificant portion of NZ GDP. This is more similar to the colonial pillaging of Africa in the 1900s.
I hope courts in foreign countries learn this trick and start claiming assets of american citizens in banks abroad based on laws in their own national interest - starting with Brazil, Russia, India, and China.
Talk about a dotcom boom!
Dotcom hasn't evaded the US charges, he's used his right of appeal in New Zealand to challenge the extradition. The US court is claiming that a legal right in another country constitutes evasion in the US, that lets them seize assets.
In other words, foreign legal rights are null and void. Regardless of he extradition treaties and agreements, the court views use of those rights as evading charges.
The other omission: Dotcom was spied on by the New Zealand spies. They are not supposed to spy on New Zealand but did anyway when requested by the US. Politicians elected under that surveillance regime, then changed the laws to make spying on New Zealand by the New Zealand spy agency is now legal. Even when they're working for a foreign power.
The cognitive dissonance that GCSB, GCHQ and the other spies agency must tell themselves so they can sleep at night beggers belief.
I really have a hard time taking sides in this one.
Rule of thumb: ignore the character of the person, reserve judgement for the law.
It sometimes helps to remove the person from the equation and substitute someone blameless.
For example, imagine yourself in that situation: as you imagine this happening to you, do you think it is just?
Even more to the point, how could he then afford to mount a defence against anything he is accused of, since his assets have been taken?
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Did anyone really think this was anything more than a sham? If you're not one of the people playing on the side of the "usurpers", you're nobody. They will seize everything you have the moment they want to, and if you're not a particularly nice or just person to begin with, you're a prime target so they can make an example of you. That makes it easier to stomach all the similar people on the "right" side of the law who get away with being just as seedy and unpleasant, and keeps people from thinking they should investigate just how nude the emperor really is. Wouldn't want to have to start a civil war when we can just blame everything on some silly-sounding and safely "foreign" yahoo who made money doing the same things we're doing.
It's tempting to say... 'well its all assets abroad and therefore foreign courts will protect his right to due process' (which is what he's doing when challenging his extradition, it's due process!)..
*but*, if he had assets in the US, those would be seized on this basis. The basis, that using due process in another country, makes him a US fugitive is clearly false. That foreign courts *might* have some leeway to fix up a mistake in the US court does not make this alright. Some treaties don't permit any leeway (e.g. UK's extradition treaty doesn't even need evidence of the person committed a crime to extradite, its such a rights-free zone).
These asset forfeiture 'laws', they're really just ways of fining people without showing guilt or where no evidence of guilt is available. $2.5 billion dollar seized, from 61000 people who have not faced any charges or had any court process or been found guilty.
It's literally highway robbery in most cases, a man with a gun stops you on the road and says "hand over your money". He wears a police uniform instead of a highways robbers cloak, but the principle is the same.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/
And they even have their own gangs. The "Black Asphalt" gang, technically its a data-mining program of governmental and other (likely NSA financial) surveillance data to pick a list of the people most likely to be carrying cash.
This just internationalizes that highway robbery.
Just like in Russia.
Technically, I think that has happened, but it gets reported as "crazed terrorists execute innocent victims".
Neither side in those situations really cares about legal precedents.
Ah, but they are redefining the Constitution by appointing judges who feel they should use the bench to legislate by interpreting so as to allow whatever the government wants to do.
You know, they aren't going to saw Kim's head off with a dull knife. As bad as I deplore the abuse of the law by US prosecutors to compare it to some group of savages picking people at random to slaughter is insane. To think it's in any way comparable demonstrates that you are fucking crazy. In the end of all this crap I'd bet Kim ends up back home minus some property but alive and although he should be presumed innocent by the courts you, I, him and everyone else knows he's guilty as hell.
... legal action often is and only can be an approximation of justice. In fact, legal action usually is done when justice has been abandoned.
That powerful men with lots of money have the power to give a fat loud prankster and charlatan a hard time and go after him with very 'imaginative' ways shouldn't be of any surprise. Watching them actually do it is some absurd spectacle though, I have to admit.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
I can't think of any other way to describe this kind of B.S. than Government Theft.
All lawyers who perpetuate this bullshit deserve to be tried for treason because that's what this is.
It takes malicious intent to invent a bunch of legal complexity to justify overriding the plain language of the constitution. No normal person can read:
" nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
And get to ... "unless that persons property is merely accused of a crime"
And don't get me started about all of this bullshit about punishing property rather than people. This is all invented nonsense and the lawyers who continue to get away with propagating it deserve to be charged with treason.
That vicious Dotcom was comin' right for us!
Ahh, yes: Once again, we hear the US government can override sovereign laws and courts. In most countries, judges like to tell the politicians who's in charge: The NZ politicians were happy to suck FBI cock but that doesn't mean the courts will.
I think NZ has a universal extradition law, so Dotcom might be fucked on that point but one hopes NZ strikes down international civil forfeiture. Imagine the results otherwise: Every cop in BumFuckTown, USA can go through the NZ phone book and accuse kiwis of drug running and steal their registered assets.
The US courts steal all your assets so you can't afford to fight the charges, you are guilty of anything they want to charge you with.
Go well
it is my responsibility to enforce all the laws that haven't been passed yet. it is also my responsibility to alert each and every one of you to the potential consequences of various ordinary everyday activities you might be performing which could eventually lead to *the death penalty*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Go well
I think somebody mistook his chewable Ritalin for gum again...
Preferably already in his tech savvy lawyer's custody.
Then he can double whammy with having had his assets forfeited and showing that only de-centralized currencies (well, not really anymore due to China's takeover of the bitcoin mining pool.) can help protect your assets against arbitrary government forfeiture.
If you want to know what bullshit kim schmitz has done in the past search for kimble on any decent usenet search engine.
How can he be guilty? He is neither a US citizen, nor in territory where US law is the supreme law of the land. If Egypt, to pick a country at random, sent a goon squad into the US, abducted Bill Gates, and seized his assets because Bill violated the Sharia and ate some bacon with his eggs, the US would have bombers over Cairo that afternoon and tanks on the streets a week later.
As a US citizen I am extremely embarrassed by my country's abominable behavior. On behalf of the US I apologize to the world; this corrupt kangaroo court is not how I want the world to know us.
That's bullshit. Pure fucking bullshit. In the Unites States legal system, the accused is not supposed to have to prove their innocence. The burden of proof is supposed to be with the prosecution or the plaintiff, whichever is appropriate. There is supposed to be a presumption of innocence. Civil forfeiture is a blatant violation of this.
Sure, in the idealized version you heard about from parents and teachers as a kid. IRL, "innocent until proven guilty" is barely a thing. You have fewer rights after you are proven guilty, but nobody is *really* assuming you're innocent after you get arrested but before your trial ends. Not the cops, not the jury, not the prosecutor, not your attorney, NOBODY. Nobody is assuming you are innocent.
That doesn't mean a jury can't look at the evidence and decide you're innocent. They can. Occasionally they do. And the government has to put together a case (if you insist on it), and if the holes in it are big enough you have a shot that the jury says "maybe you're innocent after all, and that's reasonable doubt."
But everybody, everywhere, always assumes that you're guilty. 95%+ of American Criminal Law is plea bargaining, and if "innocent until proven guilty" were really a thing, then we would have a revolution before allowing a system like plea bargaining to dominate our justice system. Because plea bargains are basically coercing defendants (Whether innocent or guilty) into pleading guilty with no possibility of trial or appeal, in exchange for not being locked up for years or decades. It's not a punishment for having committed the crime--as a practical matter, it's a punishment for insisting on a trial.
Real lawyers write in C++
That was the most contorted use of logic I've seen since Roland Freisler screamed "We don't need any books of law, what's right is what gains the German people!". Of course, with "the German people", he meant the Nazi party.
The politicians responsible have no shame these days, they are literally copying the Nazis in basically every way these days, from Gestapo methods to illegal prison camps where people are held without trial. And they call it "democracy".
If it makes your comparison easier, the US also murder people in foreign countries that have never been to the US or broken US laws.
What you could call criminal civil forfeiture in the United States (specifically, civil forfeiture done by police agencies or prosecutors in response to alleged crimes but without a criminal conviction) is incredibly corrupt and corrrupting and should be abolished completely.
If the State wants to seize someone's assets in response to a crime, let them mount a case and get a criminal conviction. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. It boggles my mind that the judicial system in the United States pretends that this simple principle is somehow now obsolete.
If the US is allowed to seize assets located in country D, of person A, from country B living in country C, who has never been to the US, it means that Saudia Arabia could introduce civil forfeiture laws for the offence of "Driving While Female", and then seize all assets of all women in the US with a driving license (proof of the crime) including those who don't even own a passport. This is clearly morally wrong, and as such we must hope for calmer heads to prevail. I feel that taking Dotcoms assets *inside the US* is not a stretch - but internationally is a joke.
Donald Trump has repeatedly criticised Islam. What if the Saudi government charged him with Blasphemy . By this reasoning he is then a fugitive from Saudi Arabia and should be extradited to be convicted and executed (apparently the actual trial part there is quite optional). Along with Peter King and a large chunk of the population of Texas.
Either all countries laws apply everywhere, or no countries laws apply outside their borders. The US cannot have it both ways where their laws have worldwide reach but no one else's does. American hubris at its finest.
Good, goooood! I can feeeel your anger. Let go, release your hatred, and your journey to the dark side will be complete!
Yeah well, considering the lack of resistance as pointed out above (unjustly modded down), it really does hardly matter what you call it. The people have spoken, they approve, and that's that. Since they can't be bothered, let's call it a day and have a cold one.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I can understand seizing assets of a fugitive to prevent him from using them fleeing justice... But to withhold a Jet Ski? That's just mean.
US attorney here. This ruling makes sense.
Kim didn't set foot in the USA, but he is still charged with using a a computer to commit crimes here. He was in a conspiracy with citizens in the USA to commit felony copyright infringement. The crimes occurred in the USA. He can come to the USA and face the charges, or he can flee. If he flees and doesn't show up in court to defend the property, then it is fair game for seizure.
What if Jim was a terrorist. Suppose he transfers $10000 into a USA account to fund an operative in the USA. The USA charges him with the crime and seizes the account. Jim never set foot in the USA and won't come to the USA to face the charges. The USA keeps the 10,000 anyway. This makes sense, right? It is the same outcome for Kim who is charged with felony copyright infringement.
I hope the people of the world soon realize that the world ruling class is the tyrant.
Oppose not only the TPP but the Constitution as well. The Founding Fathers were actually split on the matter of a strong government. Read Thomas Paine's Common Sense. He was against strong government and explained why
So, according to this ruling, all the U.S. needs to do to control global industry is declare businesses crimes. Then seize business assets whether there is an official finding of guilt or not. Keep in mind that this has been to actually been to trial yet. Under U.S. law the defendant s innocent until proven guilty by trial.
Any country doing business with the U.S. should be wary of this type of anticompetitive, legalistic, economic activity. If this can happen to Kim Dotcom it can also happen to Sony, Toyota, Samsung, etc..
If global corporations just sit silently and let this happen, even if they think the Dotcom is a sleaze, they are allowing an international precedent that will set the groundwork for further international asset seizures. All that is needed is an accusation.
Dotcom should take this to the Hague.
So they took his stuff by charging the object with a crime. Weird, so now effectively both object and corporations are in some sense people and can be charged? I can't wait for the day when objects and companies are people but people are not.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
I'm alive, you aren't.
And that was the very last shit he talked.
The one who modded this down... is already in Hell. So says the Holy Spirit.
Kim would not survive in prison. There is clearly not enough fat in the food he would be served, which would lead to a slow death. Possibly it could be considered as torture.
Huh?
The geographic location of the accused and of his/her assets is irrelevant. The US government should have no right to anyone's assets without due process. All the member of the legal profession who are ok with this are scum.
believed to be illegally acquired -- even without filing any criminal charges.
For any court what so ever to allow that to stand is to prove justice is not about laws just money.
Sooner or later that system will break down.
It is at this very time every man for himself.
You're right, it is absolutely disgusting how savage foreigners invade other countries, Slaughter innocent people and get away with calling it "collateral damage".
Fucken disgusting. Don't even have the heart to do it in person, send in drones. Savages.
We have yet another example of the usual problem in US law: the failure of ethics in law and government.
The dual rights to ethical practice of law, and ethical government, arise under the 9th Amendment of the Bill of Rights - the highest law in the land, and a law which every lawyer, police officer, federal judge, and executive swears to uphold.
Even the appearance of conflict of interest must be avoided.
As they are currently written, most US civil forfeiture laws allow government to take money from other people, then using it for purposes that one would ordinary expect the government to be funding from the regular budget. Since there is often not enough money to pay government officials, this effectively frees up money to pay their salaries and benefits, and hence violates conflict of interest. Effectively, the government is attempting to hide the unethical (and hence illegal) nature of these laws by a form of money laundering.
Rights retained by the people being - by definition - retained by the people, it follows that no entity of government can take away such rights. No court in the land can authorize government to infringe rights retained by the people, and hence laws that infringe such rights are unconditionally illegal laws. Any government official that doesn't understand exactly what they are supposed to do under these circumstances needs to review historical events at a place called Nuremberg.
Stealing a portion of somebody's life is called kidnapping, and stealing their property is called theft: when the government is engaged in civil forfeiture, it is effectively engaging in both practices. Forcing people to go through a lengthy (and biased) process - in front of judges with a vested interest in not releasing illegally stolen funds - is certainly stealing a portion of somebody's life. This is wrongful conduct on the part of the police, the "justice" department, and the judges: it's the exact opposite of the Constitutional requirement of 'good behavior'.
The primary obstacle to overturning this illegal (and generally criminal) activity on the part of government seems to the be US legal profession, which has a strong vested interest in not drawing attention to legal ethics issues. Huge campaign contributions are made by associations of legal professionals, and the effect of these contributions seems to be an unwillingness by politicians to appoint judges who will act as their oaths require. The problem is pervasive: US law is riddled with legal ethics problems. This is nothing new, of course - it's been the case since the country was founded, but the problems seem to be getting worse every year.
Given this, it would be gross irresponsibility for any other country to extradite people into US custody: a legal system riddled with ethics problems can not possibly be trusted to serve the interests of justice.
There are circumstances under which it is reasonable to seize assets - generally after a trial, and after all legal expenses have been paid - but even then the ethics required posed by the Bill of Rights means the money obtained can not be placed in the regular government budget, or used to pay for anything we would normally expect government to pay for. The same applies to all forms of fines and penalties, including traffic and parking fines. All governments engaging in such seizures must come up with an ethical way to handle these funds, one that is subject to strict public scrutiny and public approval, and one which does not involve money laundering.
Still, the concept is nonsense. They file criminal charges against property, which, being inanimate, cannot possibly commit any act of any sort.
So long as the US has the largest military, with more aircraft carriers, SEAL-filled submarines, and other non-nuclear options to deploy, other nations will tend to heed our legal system -- particularly if they want to continue to have our protection from others decided to invade and/or take all their stuff. Things like this will continue to be the law of the land until such point as some nation or group of nations says "enough" and builds a counter-force that could realistically beat the US in a non-nuclear conflict, or the US gets tired of funding the world's police force and cuts back to, say, only twice that of our nearest competitor. The US has around 800 foreign military bases; our nearest competitor has about a dozen (either Russia or the UK, and most bases inside their old empires). The US has around 10 full-sized nuclear carriers; nobody else has more than 2. So long as the US has the biggest stick, it appears they will not be walking softly, but instead bullying others into following our rules. And nobody else seems intent on beefing up their sticks to the size of the US, so the status quo is unlikely to change.