American legal jurisdiction in New Zealand

Forums › Off topic › American legal jurisdiction in New Zealand

ajobbins

5052 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#154187 20-Oct-2014 16:37

I'll probably get a lifetime ban for the name I am about to mention, but......

I saw another Kim Dotcom article today about the NZ court ordering him to hand over details of his assets to US movie studios.

I'm just curious, along with all the other chargers against him being bought by the US government and private companies, what gives the NZ courts jurisdiction to make such orders? I thought that's what the extradition process was all about. If you are accused of a crime in a country that NZ has an extradition treaty with, don't they have you extradite you there to face those charges rather than using NZ courts as a proxy?

Twitter: ajobbins

1 | 2

8312 posts

Uber Geek

#1158640 20-Oct-2014 16:50

As part of the initial extradiction applicetion, there was a decision made by the NZ courts to grant the seizing of KDC's NZ assets,

Subsequent to this when the "studios" started to see KDC throwing money around again, ( funding the internet party, 5 mil bounty for evidence helping him etc) they figured that he must have stuff hidden away they was not seized (but should have been)

So they asked the NZ courts to have KDC provide a list of assets, so they can argue over where the Internet party money and others might have come from,

As with all court cases between parties that have significant means, the only real winners are the lawyers,

ajobbins

5052 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1158649 20-Oct-2014 17:08

wellygary: As part of the initial extradiction applicetion, there was a decision made by the NZ courts to grant the seizing of KDC's NZ assets,

Subsequent to this when the "studios" started to see KDC throwing money around again, ( funding the internet party, 5 mil bounty for evidence helping him etc) they figured that he must have stuff hidden away they was not seized (but should have been)

But aren't the studio's suing under a separate civil case, unrelated to the original seizure and extradition? I would have thought the studio's would have to apply to a US court for a civil lawsuit, which would not have any jurisdiction over someone who isn't in the US or a US citizen.

Twitter: ajobbins

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1158652 20-Oct-2014 17:17

leave it to the Courts, and encourage the Government to get him removed from NZ as soon as possible

ajobbins

5052 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1158665 20-Oct-2014 17:24

KiwiNZ: leave it to the Courts, and encourage the Government to get him removed from NZ as soon as possible

Ignoring who the accused is for a moment, I am trying to understand how the courts are allowed to ask on behalf of American interests for alleged breaches of american laws by someone who is not in America, is not an american citizen and the charges aren't related to (and do not qualify for) an extradition request.

Twitter: ajobbins

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1158666 20-Oct-2014 17:26

ajobbins:
KiwiNZ: leave it to the Courts, and encourage the Government to get him removed from NZ as soon as possible

Ignoring who the accused is for a moment, I am trying to understand how the courts are allowed to ask on behalf of American interests for alleged breaches of american laws by someone who is not in America, is not an american citizen and the charges aren't related to (and do not qualify for) an extradition request.

One would have to know the full details of the case to comment on that.

ajobbins

5052 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1158680 20-Oct-2014 17:39

KiwiNZ: One would have to know the full details of the case to comment on that.

I wouldn't have thought so. I'm interested in the legal mechanism that allows NZ courts to act at the behest of US organisations enforcing US laws in New Zealand more so than the specifics of this case.

Twitter: ajobbins

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1158682 20-Oct-2014 17:42

The details, the filed papers etc etc would give the basis that the court decided that it could hear the case.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1158698 20-Oct-2014 18:01

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/dotcom-loses-bid-keep-assets-hollywood-studios-bd-164225

I don't understand this either. I can speculate but I don't understand it.

In either case the civil suit is what the industry should have pursued in the first place instead of calling in favors with first the US and then the NZ government with all the spying and black helicopter crap.

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1158703 20-Oct-2014 18:10

ajobbins:
KiwiNZ: One would have to know the full details of the case to comment on that.

I wouldn't have thought so. I'm interested in the legal mechanism that allows NZ courts to act at the behest of US organisations enforcing US laws in New Zealand more so than the specifics of this case.

I will speculate that the asset seizure in regard to the extradition in regard to the charges of alleged conspiracy to violate the copyright of company xyz - allows party(s) xyz some opportunity to present before the court on the subject of those assets.

The chain of law and precedent would have to be extremely complete to allow that to happen without challenge. But who knows, maybe there is some legality of that process still to appeal.

Yabanize

2350 posts

Uber Geek

#1158706 20-Oct-2014 18:13

I too am interested in this

Kim has said before that that they did take away all of his assets, and the ones he has now are new ones he has earned with new business's like MEGA, not related to the old megaupload case

This is also something that happened recently htp://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-dismiss-141013/

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1158722 20-Oct-2014 18:35

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. NZ authorities are also in turn empowered to seek similar assistance from other countries that are also signatories to various international conventions listed within the Act. In some cases, countries may enter into bilateral agreements where they agree to provide each other the sorts of assistance I described earlier.

In simple terms, American courts/authorities don't have jurisdiction in NZ. The NZ government agrees to assist them either through international, collective agreements or bilateral agreements and the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act sets out the kind of assistance which we may provide. If people aren't happy with the scope of assistance that's being provided, petition Parliament to change the Act. For myself, as a lawyer who's reasonably familiar with the Act (but am by no means an expert) and have read the various judgments, whilst I am not always a fan of the US nor am I a fan of some of the police conduct vis-a-vis Dotcom, I happen to think our courts have done an admirable job of keeping a balanced perspective and keeping the powers-that-be in check.

Contrary to all the brainless media hype and ravings by the legally ill-informed, the general concept of providing this sort of mutual assistance in criminal cases is well enshrined in the law of most civilised countries.

ajobbins

5052 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1158727 20-Oct-2014 18:43

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. NZ authorities are also in turn empowered to seek similar assistance from other countries that are also signatories to various international conventions listed within the Act. In some cases, countries may enter into bilateral agreements where they agree to provide each other the sorts of assistance I described earlier.

In simple terms, American courts/authorities don't have jurisdiction in NZ. The NZ government agrees to assist them either through international, collective agreements or bilateral agreements and the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act sets out the kind of assistance which we may provide. If people aren't happy with the scope of assistance that's being provided, petition Parliament to change the Act. For myself, as a lawyer who's reasonably familiar with the Act (but am by no means an expert) and have read the various judgments, whilst I am not always a fan of the US nor am I a fan of some of the police conduct vis-a-vis Dotcom, I happen to think our courts have done an admirable job of keeping a balanced perspective and keeping the powers-that-be in check.

Contrary to all the brainless media hype and ravings by the legally ill-informed, the general concept of providing this sort of mutual assistance in criminal cases is well enshrined in the law of most civilised countries.

Thanks for that - great information, just the answer I was looking for.

But aren't the charges civil, rather than criminal? Does that make a difference?

Twitter: ajobbins

SaltyNZ

8218 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1158759 20-Oct-2014 19:27

ajobbins:
KiwiNZ: leave it to the Courts, and encourage the Government to get him removed from NZ as soon as possible

Ignoring who the accused is for a moment, I am trying to understand how the courts are allowed to ask on behalf of American interests for alleged breaches of american laws by someone who is not in America, is not an american citizen and the charges aren't related to (and do not qualify for) an extradition request.

They've had him charged with money laundering in the US, which is a crime.

Of course, ignoring who he is, those who are cheering on from the sidelines hoping he'll get chucked out sooner rather than later are thereby tacitly approving of it being perfectly appropriate to arrest someone accused of helping someone else copy DVDs by sending in military-armed police in helicopters at dawn, and also that they're quite happy to pay the additional garnish on all their internet and cloud service fees that will be the inevitable result of his (inevitably successful) prosecution.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

Yabanize

2350 posts

Uber Geek

#1158811 20-Oct-2014 20:20

SaltyNZ:
ajobbins:
KiwiNZ: leave it to the Courts, and encourage the Government to get him removed from NZ as soon as possible

Ignoring who the accused is for a moment, I am trying to understand how the courts are allowed to ask on behalf of American interests for alleged breaches of american laws by someone who is not in America, is not an american citizen and the charges aren't related to (and do not qualify for) an extradition request.

They've had him charged with money laundering in the US, which is a crime.

Of course, ignoring who he is, those who are cheering on from the sidelines hoping he'll get chucked out sooner rather than later are thereby tacitly approving of it being perfectly appropriate to arrest someone accused of helping someone else copy DVDs by sending in military-armed police in helicopters at dawn, and also that they're quite happy to pay the additional garnish on all their internet and cloud service fees that will be the inevitable result of his (inevitably successful) prosecution.

They obviously just added money laundering and racketeering on to make it look worse, and because you cant extradite someone for copyright infringement. Isnt extradition meant for terrorists and stuff. In my opinion its gonna blow up in hollywoods face (if he gets a fair trial that is). He said he would go to the USA voluntarily if he was allowed the same bail that he would get here, but they said no.

MegaUpload had plenty of legitimate users. Yes some people may've used it for bad things but you cant really blame him for that, when they took down links when ever asked.

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1158828 20-Oct-2014 21:02

This Crown Law Office page expands a little further on what's already been said by dejadeadnz. We have a mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT) with the US, amongst others.

1 | 2