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."
The law has no clothes. Sometimes the court is contemptible.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Keep in mind that what 2014, 2015 was the year the US government seized more money through this civil forfeiture program than the total money US citizens reported stolen.
So, by that measure, it's a very successful program.
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.
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.
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.
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...
Buffoons like you are determine to water down "treason" until the term means nothing any longer. That's as bad as anything the lawyers are doing.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
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++
The problem is that even the biggest cunt on the planet should be treated fairly and with justice.
I leave it to the reader to determine whether I'm referring to the US Government or Kim Dotcom.
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.
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.
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
AFAIK DotCom didn't have any money or assets in the US.
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.
He can come to the USA and face the charges, or he can flee.
So asserting rights in court (i.e. fighting extradition) counts as 'fleeing'? Does submitting a pretrial motion to suppress count as 'fleeing'? Turning down a plea deal? Pleading 'not guilty'? This seriously takes the legalistic redefinition of words to the next level.
Suppose he transfers $10000 into a USA account
Then those assets would be subject to US jurisdiction - it's the seizing of assets that are in other countries that's causing people the most concern. It suggests that I may be protected by extradition rules (e.g. dual criminality - I have free speech in the US, so they won't turn me over to Germany for mocking heads of state), but my assets are still fair game. Do I really have First Amendment rights in that situation?
It make legal sense, but the legal sense that it makes is that the police are a gang of thieves that are ok because the laws say so.
What they are doing is theft without trial, and thus in violation of the constitution. "...secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...". If a warrant was issued in this case, then the judge should be charged with malfeasance.
An injustice being stamped "OK" by a court doesn't turn wrong into right, it turns the court into wrong. Civil forfeiture is blatantly against the fourth amendment, and to pretend otherwise is to be turned into an apostle of tyranny.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
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.
We gotta thin out his numbers!
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
You use this word "flee." I do not think it means what you pretend it means.
You want to seize something, get a conviction. Anything else is theft, and you should be ashamed to state anything to the contrary.
Still, the concept is nonsense. They file criminal charges against property, which, being inanimate, cannot possibly commit any act of any sort.