“Dotcom’s NZ extradition hearing cancelled”

June 10, 2013

Herald Sun on June 10, 2013 released the following:

AAP

“THE hearing to decide if internet piracy accused Kim Dotcom will be extradited to the United States has been postponed from August until at least November, and may not be until April next year.

That means the extradition hearing could be held more than two years after Dotcom was arrested after the Hollywood-style police raid on his mansion north of Auckland.

A spokeswoman for North Shore District Court told AAP Dotcom’s August date had been vacated and was now scheduled to start on November 21.

A back-up date of April 14 has also been set aside if further delays develop.

The hearing – which has now been delayed several times – is expected to take several weeks.

Dotcom and his co-accused were arrested in January, 2012, and an extradition hearing was meant to be held the next month.

However, after it was revealed police botched the raid’s search warrant and New Zealand’s spy agency the GCSB illegally spied on Dotcom, a German who had become resident in New Zealand, the case has become mired in delays and court action over evidence and charges.

The US is trying to extradite Dotcom, Finn Batato, Bram van der Kolk and Mathias Ortmann over allegations their Megaupload website netted more than $US175 million ($A184 million) in criminal proceeds.

The US says it cost Hollywood’s copyright owners more than $US500 million by offering pirated copies of movies and television shows.

Megaupload was shut down after the raid but Dotcom has since launched a similar site called Mega, which doesn’t use US-based servers.

Dotcom denies the charges and says he is a political target for Hollywood.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
International Extradition Lawyers Videos:

International Extradition – When the FBI Seeks Extradition

International Extradition – Wire Transfer – Email – Telephone Call

————————————————————–

We previously discussed the extradition treaty between the United States and New Zealand here.

————————————————————–

To find additional global criminal news, please read The Global Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.

————————————————————–

International criminal defense questions, but want to be anonymous?

Free Skype Tel: +1.202.470.3427, OR

Free Skype call:

           Office Locations

Email:


“Megaupload founder wins access to evidence seized in raid”

June 3, 2013

Reuters on May 31, 2013 released the following:

“(Reuters) – A New Zealand court granted Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom access on Friday to all evidence seized by police in a 2012 raid, bolstering the Internet entrepreneur’s fight against extradition to the United States to face online piracy charges.

Repeating its decision that warrants used in the raid on Dotcom’s home were illegal, the High Court ruled that police must provide copies of evidence considered relevant to the U.S. investigation. These include materials forwarded to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Any evidence seized in the raid, including computers, hard drives, files, and other materials deemed irrelevant must be returned to the founder of the shuttered file-sharing site.

“The police are to review digital data storage devices and return any to the plaintiffs that contain no relevant material,” Justice Helen Winkelmann said in a statement. Police, she said, may retain other storage devices but had to “provide a clone of those devices to the plaintiffs”.

Acting on a request from U.S. authorities, New Zealand police arrested Dotcom and three colleagues.

Dotcom’s lawyers have argued that lack of access to the seized evidence put them at a disadvantage in defending the German national and his colleagues against extradition.

The United States has launched a criminal investigation into Megaupload, arguing that it facilitated online piracy, and participated in racketeering and money laundering.

Dotcom, who has New Zealand residency, says the site was merely a storage facility for online files and should not be held accountable if stored content was obtained illegally.

An extradition hearing is scheduled for August, but may be delayed due to separate cases linked to another court ruling that unlawful warrants were used in the police raid.

The copyright case could set a precedent for Internet liability laws and, depending on its outcome, may force entertainment companies to rethink their distribution methods.

The U.S. Justice Department says Megaupload cost copyright holders such as movie studios and record companies more than $500 million and generated more than $175 million in criminal proceeds. It described the case as being among the largest ever involving criminal copyright.

Dotcom launched a new file-sharing service, Mega, in January.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
International Extradition Lawyers Videos:

International Extradition – When the FBI Seeks Extradition

International Extradition – Wire Transfer – Email – Telephone Call

————————————————————–

We previously discussed the extradition treaty between the United States and New Zealand here.

————————————————————–

To find additional global criminal news, please read The Global Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.

————————————————————–

International criminal defense questions, but want to be anonymous?

Free Skype Tel: +1.202.470.3427, OR

Free Skype call:

           Office Locations

Email:


Kim Dotcom allegedly ridicules charges against him

March 28, 2012
Megaupload Founder Kim Dotcom

RT on March 28, 2012 released the following:

“On Monday MegaUpload founder Kim Dotcom said he is preparing an “entertaining” motion in response to the US government’s charges against him.

The German born, New Zealand millionaire who spent approximately five weeks behind bars for allegedly running the largest media piracy operation, said in an interview with Torrent Freak that not all of the charges against him are accurate.

Dotcom was accused of illegally uploading millions of songs. But according to the millionaire himself many of charges against him are absolutely inaccurate. For example, Dotcom cites an audio file of a song by the rapper 50 Cent he was accused of illegally downloading and distributing. In reality, the New Zealander claims the file was legally purchased.

The file’s link was emailed to several of his friends for the purpose of testing the website’s new email feature. Furthermore, Dotcom claimed the song had a total of zero downloads.

The indictment filed by the US government for his alleged involvement in an online conspiracy that authorities claim stole hundreds of millions of dollars from the entertainment industry, states the 50 Cent email he sent was part of the prosecution’s evidence.

According to Kim Schmitz, aka Dotcom, the file was legally purchased and posted back in 2006 and isn’t relevant due to the statute of limitation having been expired.

In addition to the 50 Cent file, Schmitz also contended that a Louis Armstrong song mentioned in the indictment was also legally bought.

“The indictment contained an email in which I suggested to provide Warner Brothers with a limited number of deletes per day,” Dotcom said in his interview.

“In fact, days later Warner Brothers got the maximum quota of 100,000 deletes per day,” Dotcom said in response to allegations of his refusal to cooperate with the media giant.

Dotcom believes the fact the he was willing to remove the material for his site verifies that he was more than willing to cooperate with copyright holders. Warner Brothers also was able to impede part of the problem by using MegaUpload’s built in tool that allowed for reporting of copy written material on the site.

According to Dotcom, the tool aided Warner Brothers in removing more than one million files from the notorious site.

Dotcom also added that not all users were transferring “pirated” material and claims the recent happenings have hurt those users who held accounts strictly from the purpose of transferring files over long distances without the need of a hard drive, memory stick or DVD. Among those members he added that 15,000 were US military servicemen that probably used their account to share photos with loved ones back home.

Since he set bail in early March, Dotcom has been under house arrests and has been critical on how the US government has handled the situation.

The seven year operator of the MegaUpload has slammed the entertainment industry and the politicians behind the legal proceeding claiming his site’s policies are no different than that of YouTube.

“If you read the indictment and if you hear what the prosecution has said in court, at least $500 million of damage were just music files and just within a two-week time period. So they are actually talking about $13 billion damage within a year just for music downloads. The entire US music industry is less than $20 billion,”explained Dotcom in an interview with New Zealand’s 3news earlier this month.

“In my opinion, the government of the United States protecting an outdated monopolistic business model that doesn’t work anymore in the age of the Internet and that’s what it all boils down to,”he added.

Dotcom promised the motion would soon come.

Amidst a pending extradition request by the US, Dotcom may have the case shift further in his favor, especially after a New Zealand judge ruled that law enforcement apprehended his possessions with a fake warrant. The authorities behind this have filed for another warrant, but if the judge denies the request Dotcom could have access to all his assets once again.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
International Extradition Lawyers Videos:

International Extradition – When the FBI Seeks Extradition

International Extradition – Wire Transfer – Email – Telephone Call

————————————————————–

We previously discussed the extradition treaty between the United States and New Zealand here.

————————————————————–

To find additional global criminal news, please read The Global Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition and OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


NZ court increases Megaupload founder Dotcom’s living expenses, returns car

March 22, 2012

Total Telecom on March 22, 2012 released the following:

“By Lucy Craymer, Dow Jones Newswires

Extradition hearing for owners of file-sharing Website to take place in August.

The founder of the Megaupload.com website, Kim Dotcom, won’t be slumming it while he awaits a decision on extradition to the U.S. after he had his monthly allowance increased to NZ$60,000 (US$48,480) and had his Mercedes Benz G55 AMG returned to him.

New Zealand High Court Justice Judith Potter said in a decision released Thursday that Dotcom would be allowed NZ$60,000 a month from his frozen assets, which will include interest on NZ$10 million of government bonds he owns.

Her decision also allows Dotcom to have use of his G55 AMG off-road vehicle on condition he pay for registration, insurance and suitable garaging for the vehicle.

The vehicle is one of 21 confiscated when Dotcom was arrested in a raid in January. It has a top speed of 210 kilometers an hour, can go from 0 to 100 kilometers an hour in 5.5 seconds and retails new for around US$120,000.

Dotcom had all his assets seized when he was arrested in January alongside Megaupload Chief Marketing Officer Finn Batato, 38, Chief Technical Officer, Director and Co-Founder Mathias Ortmann, 40, both from Germany, and Dutch national Bram van der Kolk, 29.

Justice Potter also ordered that van der Kolk receive payments of NZ$9,166 a month to cover living expenses.

An interim order to take custody of the men’s assets in February has been extended through until April 4 “to enable the applicant (Dotcom) to obtain final instructions” on whether to go ahead with a challenge to the order, Justice Potter said.

The extradition hearing for the four men, all of whom have been granted bail, is expected to take place in August. U.S. authorities claim Megaupload Ltd., based in Hong Kong, and its collection of websites generated more than US$175 million in alleged criminal proceeds and caused more than half a billion dollars in harm to copyright owners.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
International Extradition Lawyers Videos:

International Extradition – When the FBI Seeks Extradition

International Extradition – Wire Transfer – Email – Telephone Call

————————————————————–

We previously discussed the extradition treaty between the United States and New Zealand here.

————————————————————–

To find additional global criminal news, please read The Global Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition and OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


USA: The long arm of American copyright-Asia Sentinel

March 21, 2012

facthai.wordpress.com on March 17, 2012 released the following:

“Kim Dotcom and America’s Debatable Hegemony

America’s long arm might be too long. Washington attempts to rewrite the concept of sovereign borders in Megaupload copyright case

Paul Karl Lukacs
Asia Sentinel: March 13, 2012

On Feb. 29, a New Zealand judge reminded the United States government that its power has limits. Washington is unlikely to heed the message.

The issue before the Auckland High Court was whether Kim Dotcom (previously Kim Schmitz) should be given bail for house arrest and electronic monitoring pending his August extradition hearing. The US Justice Department, alleging that Dotcom’s Megaupload family of web sites constituted a criminal conspiracy to infringe copyrights, demanded that Dotcom be held in a Kiwi jail until formally transported to the States for trial.

In his judgment, Justice Timothy Brewer rejected the Americans’ argument, noting “the presumption at law that Mr. Dotcom should have his liberty,” and ordered that the defendant remain out of prison. Justice Brewer, a junior bench officer who has held his post for less than two years, found that Dotcom was not a proven flight risk since, among other factors, the US and allied governments had seized about US$25 million in assets, which Dotcom would presumably fight to regain.

The judge, addressing only the specific issue before him, did not ask the larger question: How exactly was the United States claiming authority over Dotcom, a European operating in Asia and Oceania?

It is a good question. American prosecutors allege that Dotcom, known for his extravagant lifestyle, engaged in criminal copyright infringement. But federal courts have made it clear that US copyright laws apply only within the physical territory of the United States and do not apply outside the country.

“Copyright laws do not have extraterritorial operation,” according to the federal appeals court in New York. Its coordinate court in California agreed, thereby setting the rule for the country’s entertainment industry.

Consequently, the US assertion of jurisdiction against Dotcom is problematic on its face. A review of the factual allegations in the Justice Department’s 72-page indictment reveals that the case is based on a weak jurisdictional foundation, specifically that Dotcom allegedly had a banking relationship with PayPal and that he allegedly stored some data on a few servers in Virginia (possibly without his knowledge). In other words, it is obvious from the prosecutors’ own one-sided version of events that Dotcom operated outside the United States and that investigators were charged with digging deep to find one or two gotchas on which the US could premise its exercise of personal jurisdiction.

While other nations are limited by resources and principles from exerting their will outside of their borders, the US has not been shy about attempting to dictate global rules. In 1977, Congress passed the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in which it commanded that US nationals doing business abroad were required to adhere to American anti-bribery standards regardless of the economic impact or the on-the-ground reality.

In 2003, anti-pedophile hysteria resulted in the PROTECT Act, which prohibits US travelers from engaging in sexual intercourse with persons under 18 anywhere in the world no matter the local age of consent. Recently, US expats have been subject to financial reporting requirements that strip them of banking privacy.

While the extraterritorial reach of those laws was justified by the drafters on the grounds that they applied only to US nationals, the Dotcom case is a flat-out assertion by the United States that its laws can be applied to anyone anywhere — even when, as with the Copyright Act, federal judges have plainly said that they can’t.

Dotcom appears to have had nothing to do with the United States, and if he did, the Justice Department would have said so. Rather, Dotcom holds passports from Germany and Finland under different names (all of which are legal, as the New Zealand judge noted). His businesses are headquartered in Hong Kong. He lives with his children and pregnant wife in New Zealand.

Yet the US government has used the shakiest of jurisdictional pretexts to close his business, freeze his assets and arrest him, all of which happened without an adversarial hearing on the merits. In a routine civil copyright case, an injunction or attachment of assets can issue only after notice and an opportunity to test the plaintiff s evidence in open court. Here, the US government avoided those safeguards.

In an equally troubling development, multiple foreign governments have assisted the US in its prosecution. For example, at the bail hearing before Justice Brewer, the United States was represented not by independently retained counsel but by the New Zealand government’s Crown Law Office.

When executing the initial arrest warrant, the Kiwi police were armed, an unnecessary show of deadly force when dealing with a businessman accused of a property crime. In the Chinese territory of Hong Kong, police are reported to have dispatched about 100 officers to raid Dotcom’s offices and residences.

The United States is re-writing the very concept of borders. Previously, a nation’s ability to exert its authority was limited by physical restraints which stopped at, or, in some cases, well short of a line on a map. With modern electronics and communications equipment (not to mention mobile armed forces), a wealthy nation can exert pressure where ever it wants against whomever it targets.

Assertions of extraterritorial jurisdiction by major powers may become one of the most controversial legal issues of the decade.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
International Extradition Lawyers Videos:

International Extradition – When the FBI Seeks Extradition

International Extradition – Wire Transfer – Email – Telephone Call

————————————————————–

To find additional global criminal news, please read The Global Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition and OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.