Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


5248 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1134

Trusted
Subscriber

Topic # 97090 10-Feb-2012 12:42
Send private message

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Clearly we have allowed some laws to hit the books that need to be repealed.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'm on a high fibre diet. 

 

High fibre diet


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
 1 | 2
507 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 42


  Reply # 579716 10-Feb-2012 13:11
Send private message

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

532 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 28


  Reply # 579727 10-Feb-2012 13:20
Send private message

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   Smile

3094 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1561


  Reply # 579731 10-Feb-2012 13:25
Send private message

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.  




Always be yourself, unless you can be Batman, then always be the Batman



532 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 28


  Reply # 579741 10-Feb-2012 13:35
Send private message

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

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user


  Reply # 579742 10-Feb-2012 13:36
Send private message

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.

715 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 121


  Reply # 579743 10-Feb-2012 13:37
Send private message

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.

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1571


  Reply # 579752 10-Feb-2012 13:47
Send private message

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?)

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1571


  Reply # 579755 10-Feb-2012 13:49
Send private message

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


Jo Karam?   :P

532 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 28


  Reply # 579770 10-Feb-2012 14:02
Send private message

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 Wink.

507 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 42


  Reply # 579802 10-Feb-2012 14:47
Send private message

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.

7893 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 796

Subscriber

  Reply # 579860 10-Feb-2012 16:45
Send private message

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


507 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 42


  Reply # 579875 10-Feb-2012 17:30
Send private message

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

365 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 15


  Reply # 579876 10-Feb-2012 17:34
Send private message

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

1984 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 133

Trusted

  Reply # 579921 10-Feb-2012 19:25
Send private message

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?




Qualified in business, certified in fibre, stuck in copper, have to keep going  ^_^

18536 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5307

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 579939 10-Feb-2012 19:53
Send private message

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   Smile


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


 

 1 | 2
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.