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.
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.
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.
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?