Appeals Court Says It's Perfectly Fine For The DOJ To Steal Kim Dotcom's Money Before Any Trial - Polidicks

[quote]Last year, there was a series of very troubling rulings by a district court in a case related to the criminal prosecution of Kim Dotcom. This wasn't, technically, part of the actual criminal case against him, but rather a separate effort by the government to steal his money. We've been covering the ridiculous process of civil asset forfeiture for a while, and it's really problematic in general. In Dotcom's case, it's something of a farce. Remember, civil asset forfeiture is the situation where the US government effectively files a civil (not criminal) lawsuit against inanimate objects, rather than people. In this case, it basically filed a lawsuit against all of Kim Dotcom's money, arguing that it was the proceeds of a crime and therefore, the government should just get it all. Again, this is entirely separate from the actual criminal trial of Kim Dotcom, which has been put on hold while the extradition battle plays out in New Zealand (determining if Dotcom can be forcibly sent to the US to stand trial). [/quote] (...) [quote]It is difficult to see how this can be legitimately described as anything but theft by the US government. It got someone locked up in New Zealand, based on questionable legal theories, and while he was (quite reasonably) fighting extradition to the US (a place he's never visited and where he has no business ties), it initiated a separate legal process to keep all his money, no matter what happens in his extradition fight and criminal trial. On top of that, it effectively barred him from making an official claim on that money by having him declared a fugitive for exercising his legal due process rights to fight extradition. So while he exercises his legal due process rights in New Zealand, he's blocked from doing so in the US. And all of his money goes to the US government. [/quote] source: [url]https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160812/10212635226/appeals-court-says-perfectly-fine-doj-to-steal-kim-dotcoms-money-before-any-trial.shtml[/url] [media]https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/582068295366410240[/media]

[QUOTE]In this case, it basically filed a lawsuit against all of Kim Dotcom's money, arguing that it was the proceeds of a crime and therefore, the government should just get it all.[/QUOTE] Why sue people for money when we can just sue the money instead? Fuck this government.

But I bet U.S was a big part of making that money, and I don't see why someone in a government office wouldn't say " He broke our laws despite never having anything here via the internet and our citizens." and get all his money. Still weird and shitty.

How can they even get their hands on his money? Was it all in US banks or is NZ going along with sending it over? Either way, this entire trial is a demonstration of how far the US is willing to go to break it's own laws and violate foreigners rights just to please the copyright giants.

Here's better articles with less opinion in them: [URL="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/court-us-seizure-of-kim-dotcoms-millions-and-4-jet-skis-will-stand/"]Ars Technia[/URL] [URL="http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/08/kim-dotcom-loses-us-appeal-226951"]Politico[/URL] [URL="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1372694-usa-v-dotcom-july-2014-civil-forfeiture.html"]That document[/URL] is a real interesting read. The assets were forfeited (with help from the NZ government) because the revenue from Megaupload and other sites was classified as money from crime. The chat logs they put throughout the document basically suggest most people working on Megaupload knew about all the copyright infringement and some may have encouraged it. These two parts seem the most relevant: [t]http://i.imgur.com/vs3ksM7.png[/t] [t]http://i.imgur.com/UHdAhGq.png[/t] The assets being taken weren't related to the new Mega (everything was taken in 2012 before Mega launched) and wasn't exclusively caused by the copyright infringement. Kim and friends had millions of dollars overseas in tons of Hong Kong bank accounts. Since they probably knew about copyright being broken all over the place and Kim went and bought legitimate assets (tons of cars, mansion, etc) with it, it turned into money laundering. [correct me if i'm wrong, not a lawyer]

[QUOTE=The freeman;50878574]Here's better articles with less opinion in them: [URL="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/court-us-seizure-of-kim-dotcoms-millions-and-4-jet-skis-will-stand/"]Ars Technia[/URL] [URL="http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/08/kim-dotcom-loses-us-appeal-226951"]Politico[/URL] [URL="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1372694-usa-v-dotcom-july-2014-civil-forfeiture.html"]That document[/URL] is a real interesting read. The assets were forfeited (with help from the NZ government) because the revenue from Megaupload and other sites was classified as money from crime. The chat logs they put throughout the document basically suggest most people working on Megaupload knew about all the copyright infringement and some may have encouraged it. These two parts seem the most relevant: [t]http://i.imgur.com/vs3ksM7.png[/t] [t]http://i.imgur.com/UHdAhGq.png[/t] The assets being taken weren't related to the new Mega (everything was taken in 2012 before Mega launched) and wasn't exclusively caused by the copyright infringement. Kim and friends had millions of dollars overseas in tons of Hong Kong bank accounts. Since they probably knew about copyright being broken all over the place and Kim went and bought legitimate assets (tons of cars, mansion, etc) with it, it turned into money laundering. [correct me if i'm wrong, not a lawyer][/QUOTE] From what I recall they did actually comply with DMCA requests and the like--to the extent that they actually left files running to gather evidence for the complainants. More interestingly are Kim's tweets about a certain lawyer: [media]https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/763564091872940032[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/763562554882793472[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/763560758537965569[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/763164133722238976[/media] Especially relevant because of the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act" ([url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act[/url]) Whether Kim was knowingly involved in piracy or not, its a bit bizarre that despite having no interests or property in the US that the government can take hold of his possessions. Its pretty fucked up actually, in this day and age when people try to claim their EULA/DMCA/this law/that law is enforceable in countries where it doesn't actually exist. More importantly it raises serious questions about the development of internet-based businesses in non-EU/non-US jurisdictions.

[QUOTE=gawkermedia;50878687]From what I recall they did actually comply with DMCA requests and the like--to the extent that they actually left files running to gather evidence for the complainants.[/QUOTE] This is actually covered in that document, and they basically skirted around the issue but would rarely remove files outright. [t]http://i.imgur.com/uHfqsDf.png[/t] [t]http://i.imgur.com/WhUt5SN.png[/t] The whole thing is on Page 11 under part "B". [QUOTE=gawkermedia;50878687] Whether Kim was knowingly involved in piracy or not, its a bit bizarre that despite having no interests or property in the US that the government can take hold of his possessions. Its pretty fucked up actually, in this day and age when people try to claim their EULA/DMCA/this law/that law is enforceable in countries where it doesn't actually exist. More importantly it raises serious questions about the development of internet-based businesses in non-EU/non-US jurisdictions.[/QUOTE] The US has mutual agreements with both New Zealand and Hong Kong to help with international crime. There needs to be adjustments to satisfy the laws on both sides, but the US can easily take down a Hong Kong bank account with help from the HK government. It would be horrifyingly bad on the side of Hong Kong or New Zealand if they didn't have similar laws. The copyright holders primarily existed in the US, so it would make sense that they would take the lead. Note that while the US has some control over the assets, they're still in the possession of New Zealand. The Politico article stated that "Dotcom already persuaded New Zealand courts to release about $5 million for living expenses and legal fees, without any authorization from the U.S. courts."

"steal"

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50879136]"steal"[/QUOTE] Civil forfeiture is 100% stealing, it's operating under the concept of "guilty until proven innocent". There's 0 reason it should be legal in any first-world country. I get that it's your job to defend cops literally no matter what they do or whatever but civil forfeiture is appalling. If you can't prove someone's guilt, then [I]they are not guilty, too bad, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars.[/I] If you think that taking people's money without due process isn't theft, then you should be ashamed to call yourself a civil servant or a protector of the people.

[QUOTE=phygon;50879370]Civil forfeiture is 100% stealing, it's operating under the concept of "guilty until proven innocent". There's 0 reason it should be legal in any first-world country.[/QUOTE] I think regardless of what your opinions are on civil forfeiture it is going to become increasingly irrelevant when it comes to online piracy. As it stands, Kim is hinting at an upcoming platform he is developing that will revolve around Bitcoin transactions or at the very least blockchain technology. If implemented well it makes it extremely difficult for a government to take control of any funds, or even know exact figures. After-all the internet is as disruptive of a technology as it was 30 years ago and its unlikely or nigh on impossible for the legal system to adapt in time. In a few years time it won't matter and no government will have this level of control over people's private assets. If you disagree with the concept of legal systems being unable to catch up with the fast pace of internet development/advancement then I'd consider this: [quote]"no exact count of the number of federal statutes that impose criminal sanctions has ever been given, but estimates from the last 15 years range from 3,600 to approximately 4,500." Meanwhile, according to recent congressional testimony, the number of federal regulations (enacted by administrative agencies under loose authority from Congress) carrying criminal penalties may be as many as 300,000.[/quote] source: [url]http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/03/29/crime-law-criminal-unfair-column/70630978/[/url]