SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
Kim Dotcom has petitioned the US Supreme Court in the hope of regaining control over millions of dollars in assets that were seized by the US Government. Dotcom's legal team is challenging the finding that as a fugitive, Megaupload's founder has no standing to reclaim his seized property.
[...] However, Dotcom is determined to regain access to his property and has now taken the case to the US Supreme Court. Together with the other defendants, he filed a petition to the Supreme Court to overturn the "fugitive disentitlement" ruling and the forfeiture of his assets.
The crux of the case is whether or not the District Court's order to forfeit an estimated $67 million in assets was right. The defense argues that Dotcom and the other Megaupload defendants were wrongfully labeled as fugitives by the Department of Justice.
Dotcom's legal team warns that, if the current verdict stands, the US Government can seize the assets of foreign nationals based on unproven claims.
Source: https://torrentfreak.com/kim-dotcom-takes-fight-over-seized-millions-to-us-supreme-court-170410/
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Thursday April 13 2017, @09:03PM (7 children)
It is doubly stupid in this case since Kim Dotcom is not even under US jurisdiction.
Are we supposed to accept that the USG is allowed to seize the assets on anybody on the planet?
(Score: 2) by epitaxial on Thursday April 13 2017, @09:10PM (6 children)
Doing some reading it seems that Megaupload had 525 servers located in Virginia.
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Thursday April 13 2017, @10:40PM (5 children)
Dotcom is not a US citizen and was not, and is not, within the Jurisdiction of the USA. And has not been convicted of any crime in the US, which if I recall means that he is to be presumed innocent until *proven* otherwise.
Yet the US Feds claim they can seize his money.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by fishybell on Thursday April 13 2017, @11:47PM (1 child)
With civil forfeitures the seized assets have no presumption of innocence. Rather, you typically have to prove they are innocent, not just not guilty.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 14 2017, @03:12PM
I think the point was that civil forfeiture is unconstitutional.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday April 14 2017, @12:20AM (2 children)
If he does business in the USA, then any assets he has there are within the jurisdiction of the USA. And there's a reasonable argument that if you use an American computer to commit a crime, that crime falls under the jurisdiction of the USA because that's where the crime took place. A similar argument: If a Canadian flies an drone over the border with a gun mounted on it, and uses that drone to shoot somebody, that's still a crime in the USA and the US government can go after whoever was flying the drone.
He has come as close to being convicted of a crime as he can be, given that he has never faced trial in the US. Some of his options, if he wanted to clear his name:
1. Hire an American legal team and file a motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that the prosecution hasn't proven a case that he could have possibly committed any of the crimes he's charged with.
2. Go to the US for trial, and mount an appropriate legal defense that convinces at least 1 juror he's not guilty.
Until then, he's in exactly the same category as a person who skips the country after a murder indictment. And yes, that means any assets that he has in the USA can be seized.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday April 14 2017, @12:42AM
IIRC, the seized asset in New Zealand as well.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 14 2017, @01:24AM
That's factually incorrect on a number of counts.
The first is that he didn't skip the country after an indictment. He's never been in the USA except as an occasional visitor and this was prior.
Secondly, he's not actually be indicted and that's his argument. They are trying to extradite him. There is a warrant, but the warrant has never been served and he has never been indicted.
Thirdly, the supposed crime he's accused of committing isn't a crime, at worst it's a civil offense and the FBIs involvement itself should be investigated here.
It wouldn't be a jury trial because again it's a civil offense.
Fourthly, assets in the USA can always be seized by the US regardless of owner or reason. It's the whole "you might beat the rap, but you'll never beat the ride" aspect of our law enforcement system. LEOs assume everyone is guilty and then let the courts weed it out. In the meantime they get to enjoy the many, many benefits of civil asset forfeiture and if it's ever paid back it will be the taxpayers who are stuck footing the bill, not the corrupt "enforcers".
Seriously, if you want to beat this back, all you need are well placed friends just like in any 3rd world tin pot dictatorship. Unfortunately for Kimmy, he's not so great at making the right kinds of friends and the MPAA have deep enough pockets to pay our LEAs to do their dirty work.