Which NZ laws enable dotcom's property to be confiscated?

Forums › Off topic › Which NZ laws enable dotcom's property to be confiscated?

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#97090 10-Feb-2012 12:42

The guy isn't charged with any crime in New Zealand.

Which of our laws allow the police and the state to confiscate everything despite no charges being laid here...and the guy being convicted of nothing anywhere relating to any charges laid elsewhere?

Clearly we have allowed some laws to hit the books that need to be repealed.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

1 | 2

626 posts

Ultimate Geek

#579716 10-Feb-2012 13:11

Im guessing it will be along the lines of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009. Its not a confiscation, but a restraining of the property until the matter is settled.

It certainly seems the boundaries are blurry when its a US based charge though

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#579727 10-Feb-2012 13:20

I have wondered the same but not taken the trouble to do a search. No doubt there is one and would also be interested to know the details.

All seems a bit agressive which then leads me to wonder how he can conduct a well funded defence if all his assets are frozen?

Seeing a promo for a rerun of the Osama bin Laden compound attack on TV last night it struck me that perhaps the only real difference between that and the Dotcom home attack was that bin Laden and one of his folk got shot dead while Dotcom and his security guard were just a trigger pull from the same result, and bin Laden's house wasn't trashed to the same degree. Oh, and the coppers didn't lose one of their helicopters - all else seems much the same.

EDIT: corrected freudian slip edited Obama to Osama

scuwp

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#579731 10-Feb-2012 13:25

SpookyAwol: Im guessing it will be along the lines of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009. Its not a confiscation, but a restraining of the property until the matter is settled.

It certainly seems the boundaries are blurry when its a US based charge though

Yep, the act applies in this case so the property has been secured until the facts can be determined:

Application

This Act applies in respect of—
- (a) qualifying instrument forfeiture offences or, if applicable, foreign qualifying forfeiture offences committed, or believed to have been committed, before, on, or after the commencement of this section; and
- (b) significant criminal activity or, if applicable, significant foreign criminal activity engaged in, or believed to have been engaged in, before, on, or after the commencement of this section

If the property is later found to have been legally and honestly obtained then it is all returned.

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#579741 10-Feb-2012 13:35

How does such a person get to fund a strong defence if all their assets are taken from their control?

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#579742 10-Feb-2012 13:36

I know this is a bit off topic but it seems @Kim_Dot_Com is tweeting from prison.

Could be a fake account, but its quiet humerous and he is responding to most tweets.

minimoke

750 posts

Ultimate Geek

#579743 10-Feb-2012 13:37

John2010: How does such a person get to fund a strong defence if all their assets are taken from their control?

You could have asked Alan Hubbard since he was so keen to help people. Unfortunatly events have overtaken his ability to help though.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#579752 10-Feb-2012 13:47

scuwp:
SpookyAwol: Im guessing it will be along the lines of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009. Its not a confiscation, but a restraining of the property until the matter is settled.

It certainly seems the boundaries are blurry when its a US based charge though

Yep, the act applies in this case so the property has been secured until the facts can be determined:

Application
This Act applies in respect of—
(a) qualifying instrument forfeiture offences or, if applicable, foreign qualifying forfeiture offences committed, or believed to have been committed, before, on, or after the commencement of this section; and
(b) significant criminal activity or, if applicable, significant foreign criminal activity engaged in, or believed to have been engaged in, before, on, or after the commencement of this section

If the property is later found to have been legally and honestly obtained then it is all returned.

The problem then, is what happens if the property does not survive the confiscation?

In the case of DotCom, his assets being frozen and website taken down means all the data on the servers is going to be deleted. Do the police have an obligation to keep property in the same condition it was found, or is it ok for them to allow this data to be deleted before it can be determined if it was illegal or not?

(an analogous situation might be if the police confiscated a bunch of milk they thought was stolen. Would they be required to keep it refrigerated? What if the it was not determined to be ok for several months, would they be required to replace the milk?)

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.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#579755 10-Feb-2012 13:49

John2010: How does such a person get to fund a strong defence if all their assets are taken from their control?

Jo Karam? :P

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#579770 10-Feb-2012 14:02

NonprayingMantis:
scuwp:
SpookyAwol: Im guessing it will be along the lines of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009. Its not a confiscation, but a restraining of the property until the matter is settled.

It certainly seems the boundaries are blurry when its a US based charge though

Yep, the act applies in this case so the property has been secured until the facts can be determined:

Application
This Act applies in respect of—
(a) qualifying instrument forfeiture offences or, if applicable, foreign qualifying forfeiture offences committed, or believed to have been committed, before, on, or after the commencement of this section; and
(b) significant criminal activity or, if applicable, significant foreign criminal activity engaged in, or believed to have been engaged in, before, on, or after the commencement of this section

If the property is later found to have been legally and honestly obtained then it is all returned.

The problem then, is what happens if the property does not survive the confiscation?...

Or the business(es) fails, losses on business activities (real and opportunity), investments, etc, etc? Probably hundreds of millions - perhaps they dock the commissioner's pay

SpookyAwol

626 posts

Ultimate Geek

#579802 10-Feb-2012 14:47

The problem then, is what happens if the property does not survive the confiscation?

Assuming he wins, Dotcoms lawyers will have a field day suing the americans? :)
I imagine this will be tied up in the courts for years.

old3eyes

9120 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#579860 10-Feb-2012 16:45

SpookyAwol:
The problem then, is what happens if the property does not survive the confiscation?

Assuming he wins, Dotcoms lawyers will have a field day suing the americans? :)
I imagine this will be tied up in the courts for years.

I suspect the NZ Police will also be sued as well being a party to it..

Regards,

Old3eyes

SpookyAwol

626 posts

Ultimate Geek

#579875 10-Feb-2012 17:30

Only on the grounds it was illegal. If that were the case, it would be the basis of dotcoms argument now.

mxpress

376 posts

Ultimate Geek

#579876 10-Feb-2012 17:34

whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?

Personally i feel sorry for him and think that NZ police appear to be run by FBI.

mxpress

webwat

2036 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#579921 10-Feb-2012 19:25

SpookyAwol:
The problem then, is what happens if the property does not survive the confiscation?

Assuming he wins, Dotcoms lawyers will have a field day suing the americans? :)
I imagine this will be tied up in the courts for years.

I certainly hope so, although I doubt there would be any such thing as a fair trial once FBI have invested so much into winning the case.

I would say that legitimate data would not be deleted, but its useless all the same because it becomes outdated while the site is offline. A cloud-based business that takes care of people's and company's data cannot afford to be offline, or for that matter to give the impression that data is no longer secure or owned by the customer,

While nothing more than a few doors and a dumb-waiter may actually have been destroyed, I hope dotcom manages to recover the destruction in value of his business from the FBI. Ironically, this action and the "Patriot Act" it followed may start to hurt other cloud hosting services in an industry thats forecasting huge growth. America may lose its domination of the data centre industry as businesses choose to avoid such risks when looking for hosting of mission-critical data.

I wonder if cancelling the US extradition agreement would attract more business to NZ?

Time to find a new industry!

networkn

Networkn
32353 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#579939 10-Feb-2012 19:53

John2010: I have wondered the same but not taken the trouble to do a search. No doubt there is one and would also be interested to know the details.

All seems a bit agressive which then leads me to wonder how he can conduct a well funded defence if all his assets are frozen?

EDIT: corrected freudian slip edited Obama to Osama

Meh didn't stop the Govt from railroading the Hubbards in the same way. They couldn't even afford groceries!

1 | 2