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."
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.
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.
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.
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?
I think somebody mistook his chewable Ritalin for gum again...
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++