American legal jurisdiction in New Zealand

Forums › Off topic › American legal jurisdiction in New Zealand

1 | 2

gzt

17163 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1158829 20-Oct-2014 21:03

Yabanize: Isnt extradition meant for terrorists and stuff.

Nope. Any offense which would carry a mandatory minimum of 12 months imprisonment if it occurred in NZ:

MFAT advice:

Any request for extradition from New Zealand must relate to an “extraditable offence” which is defined as an offence that:

• Carries a maximum penalty of not less than one year’s imprisonment in the requesting
country; and
• Involves conduct that would be regarded as criminal had it occurred in New Zealand, and
would have carried a similar penalty.
• Is specified by the extradition treaty, if there is one.

Backed up by: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1999/0055/latest/DLM25681.html

How that relates to KDc's charges I do not know.

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1158849 20-Oct-2014 21:43

gzt:
MFAT advice:

Any request for extradition from New Zealand must relate to an “extraditable offence” which is defined as an offence that:

• Carries a maximum penalty of not less than one year’s imprisonment in the requesting
country; and
• Involves conduct that would be regarded as criminal had it occurred in New Zealand, and
would have carried a similar penalty.
• Is specified by the extradition treaty, if there is one.

Backed up by: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1999/0055/latest/DLM25681.html

How that relates to KDc's charges I do not know.

If you look up American statutes I think you'll find both money laundering and racketeering carrying a penalty of more than 12 months, there may also be a criminal element in respect of his alleged copyright infringment as there is here. Thus copyright infringement and money laundering are regarded as criminal conduct in New Zealand and both carry maximum penalties well in excess of 12 months. I have no idea if that is similar or not to American penalties. I would imagine the equivalent of Racketeering here is an association offence.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1158864 20-Oct-2014 22:03

I for one am rather impressed by people like Drastab who have chosen to inform themselves with relevant, actual information, as opposed to Joe Public's tendency to repeat the pro-Dotcom, "I hate the US" one-liners.* I don't know if ultimately Dotcom will be or should be extradited but this idea that he's being ruthlessly persecuted by a pack of lawless bureaucratic ogres is nothing but pure fantasy.

Leave it to the courts -- they are doing a good job/

* This is coming from someone with a pretty low opinion of the US government and Hollywood in general.

gzt

17163 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1158893 20-Oct-2014 22:43

dejadeadnz: this idea that he's being ruthlessly persecuted by a pack of lawless bureaucratic ogres is nothing but pure fantasy.

That's a new angle. My personal feeling is - if an NZ based company had gone to the NZ police with these allegations the NZ police would have gone yeah nah this is a civil matter not really us. But even if - would an NZ judge have thought there was enough evidence to justify wiretapping? Doubt it.

Geektastic

17944 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1158901 20-Oct-2014 22:48

Is there an equivalent of Godwin's relating to KDC?!

Geektastic

17944 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1158915 20-Oct-2014 22:51

International jurisdiction is very complex - there will probably be a variety of documents such as international treaties that we have signed (probably long ago) that have a bearing on this. It won't be as simple as "the Americans asked for it and so we did it".

ajobbins

5052 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1158916 20-Oct-2014 22:53

dejadeadnz: I for one am rather impressed by people like Drastab who have chosen to inform themselves with relevant, actual information, as opposed to Joe Public's tendency to repeat the pro-Dotcom, "I hate the US" one-liners.* I don't know if ultimately Dotcom will be or should be extradited but this idea that he's being ruthlessly persecuted by a pack of lawless bureaucratic ogres is nothing but pure fantasy.

Leave it to the courts -- they are doing a good job/

* This is coming from someone with a pretty low opinion of the US government and Hollywood in general.

I agree. I think the courts here are doing an excellent and fair job, however I believe if the US are successful in extraditing Dotcom, I'm not convinced he would receive a fair trial in the US. My understanding is that meeting the threshold for extradition isn't really that hard (Only need prima facie evidence that there is a case to explore). Once he's on US soil, he's done. The fact that it's now been years since the initial raid and arrest and they still haven't held the extradition hearing makes me really suspicious of their intentions (tho I know that has been partially delayed by appeals etc, I know Dotcom has said he is ready to have it any time, it seems the US are the ones causing delays, perhaps to try and build a case after the fact).

In regards to the New Zealand courts, I have been particularly impressed by the decisions of Justice Helen Winkelmann and Justice David Harvey. Some of the government officials and politicians less so, and there is some very....inconvenient...things that have come out recently in that regard that I think deserve further exploration. They may be nothing, but (prima facie again) there are things that don't seem to add up.

Thanks to dejadeadnz and dratsab for answering the original question.

Most of this post has been about the original criminal case and extradition (in contract to my original question), but my final thoughts are that I think they should just have the hearing ASAP. Either the US have what they need to get him extradited, or they don't and the whole thing should be thrown out. The US do of course have the advantage of being able to cherry pick evidence to suit their angle if they so choose, and Dotcom isn't allowed that same evidence to try and defend himself at this stage (Which seems like something a bit broken in the legal system).

Note my comments here are in no way in support of Dotcom.

Twitter: ajobbins

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

rugrat

3108 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1159155 21-Oct-2014 11:55

Why's You Tube not being raided?

There's movies on their system that can be downloaded, or because they're in the US they get covered by the digital millennium copyright act, so it's only if operating in another country get raided etc.

Not a fan of kim dot com, and yes I don't know all facts, but the whole way it's being handled just seems wrong to me.

gzt

17163 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1159156 21-Oct-2014 12:02

That's an American issue. In this topic let's stick to the NZ legal matters and the intersection.

Lyderies

266 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1159200 21-Oct-2014 13:03

America's playing our courts, always has always will, just like they play us and our government

As soon as the raid was made illegal all evidence should have been handed over to NZ courts (even the evidence taken to US)

Otherwise it is not a fair trial and should be thrown out the door until it is a fair trial

I personally like him but i am always against unfair trials for lack of evidence on any side or dodgy playings from one, it should have been sorted out as soon as it made it to the courts. It has been far to long for a fair trial to be made

I'm going to noob myself past judgement

gzt

17163 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1159205 21-Oct-2014 13:10

What were the reasons the raid was not legal?

Lyderies

266 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1159209 21-Oct-2014 13:18

Sorry il bite my tongue, it was found legal however the FBI breached it when they stole evidence and didnt return it

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/9739447/Dotcom-raid-legal-FBI-taking-evidence-not

I'm going to noob myself past judgement

gzt

17163 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1159252 21-Oct-2014 14:28

dejadeadnz: There's a very simple answer to the OP's question: the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992.

This is a NZ statute, passed by the NZ parliament, which codifies NZ's obligation towards other countries in terms of assisting their investigation of domestic criminal offences and/or prosecutions which may nonetheless have certain linkages to assets/persons based in NZ.

Well yes. But personally I still don't really understand the legal mechanism or legal reasons the 'studios' ended up in an NZ court requesting disclosure of some affidavits. I can speculate but I don't understand.

Scoop: Justices Rhys Harrison, John Wild and Christine French ordered the release of the document to the studios, and imposed an additional order limiting the use of the affidavits to legal proceedings in respect to the restraining and freezing of assets disclosed, unless prior leave of a High Court judge was granted.

The media reporting on this lacks a lot of clarity and context, but it looks to me like the 'studios' are before the court as some kind of interested party to these assets, and not related to the US civil case, and not related to MACMA at all. Honestly not trying to be a [subgenus of Equus] I just don't get this development yet. It's not the USA authorities asking for this info from the court, it's the 'studios'.

ajobbins

5052 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1159261 21-Oct-2014 14:50

gzt:
The media reporting on this lacks a lot of clarity and context, but it looks to me like the 'studios' are before the court as some kind of interested party to these assets, and not related to the US civil case, and not related to MACMA at all. Honestly not trying to be a [subgenus of Equus] I just don't get this development yet. It's not the USA authorities asking for this info from the court, it's the 'studios'.

A civil suit was launched in Virginia, seperate to the criminal case being pursued by the US government. It sounds to me like the Studio's case (which seeks damages) is claiming Dotcom has undeclared assets. If it's found he did, I don't know if NZ has any power to seize them here for a civil case, but it may mean the Criminal case then seeks to obtain them as part of their separate case.

Twitter: ajobbins

gzt

17163 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1159263 21-Oct-2014 14:58

As an aside, it looks like the NZ court case relates to the 'studios' desire to know the value of his declared known unfrozen assets rather than an abstract and speculative undeclared assets.

1 | 2