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.
Just call it what it is: Theft. Theft committed by a vindictive cadre of criminals who operate above the law, using the law as their truncheon.
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.
The way they reason to seize assets is that they bring criminal charges against the actual object.. Since the object is not a person they don't have any lawyer looking out for it's interests.. For someone to manage to get it back they will have to spend a ton of money to fight for getting the objects back.
If you want more information just search for "Civil Forfeiture"
Easy watching video that describes the issues...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Polanski's case is slightly more complex than you make out - he pleaded guilty to unlawful sex with a minor under a plea deal with the prosecutor. Under that plea deal, he served 42 days in prison for psychiatric evaluation and under the terms of the plea deal he was to serve probation for the rest of his sentence. No one prosecuting the case was pushing for long term prison time, and the prosecutors, psychiatrists and probation officers were all pushing for probation only.
However, it became apparent to Polanski that the judge was going to throw out the terms of the plea deal, and sentence him to prison under the guilty plea, so Polanski decided the court couldn't be trusted and left the country.
Lets be clear here, right up to that point, the court had utterly no problem letting Polanski travel back and forth to Europe to finish projects during the course of the trial, and Polanski could have absconded at any point prior to his psychiatric evaluation period, but he didn't - it wasn't until it became apparent the judge was going to let the guilty plea stand while throwing out the deal attached to that plea that Polanski absconded.
So yes, Polanski did a horrible thing - but the judge in his case caused his absconding and acted disgustingly. Numerous US judges and officials have said that there was misconduct by the judge in his case, and even his victim has filed to have the charges withdrawn or dismissed, but neither can happen if the defendant doesnt appear in court - which obviously isnt going to happen, and Polanski isnt going to be satisfied with any guarantees from a US judge at this point in time.