The arrest yesterday of Megauploads head honcho Kim Dotcom and some of his cronies set tongues and Twitter wagging. Not surprisingly, Idiot/Savant from No Right Turn was outraged that the NZ Police was arresting "Kiwis" on behalf of the USA:
WTF? NZ police arrest kiwis on behalf of US for filesharing -
Over at Kiwiblog, DPF has his people talking about this issue, and opinion is divided as to whether the NZ Police should have been involved. But this story from 3News is both interesting and enlightening:
The founder of the website at the centre of an FBI-led investigation into online piracy barricaded himself with what appeared to be a shortened shotgun during the raid, police say.
Kim Dotcom, also known as Kim Schmitz, and three others were arrested in police raids in Auckland on Friday.
Who is Kim Dotcom?
The 37-year-old is a German national with New Zealand residency.
The FBI probe resulted in one of the world's largest file-sharing websites, www.megaupload.com, being shut down on Friday morning.
Read yesterday's story about Kim Schmitz's dramatic arrest
Detective Inspector Grant Wormald says when police arrived at the mansion in Coatsville in two marked police helicopters, Dotcom retreated into the house despite police clearly identifying themselves.
He activated several electronic locking mechanisms inside the house, called the Dotcom Mansion, Det Insp Wormald said.
"While police neutralised these locks he then further barricaded himself into a safe room within the house which officers had to cut their way into.
"Once they gained entry into this room they found Mr Dotcom near a firearm which had the appearance of a shortened shotgun."
Making the arrest was "definitely not as simple as knocking at the front door", he said.
If Dotcom is nothing more than a legitimate businessman, why would he have a "safe room" in the middle of his masion, and why would he need such elborate security precautions. Why would he need a shotgun at his side?
And 3News has helpfully provided a link to the actual indictment handed down by a Grand Jury in the Eastern District of Virginia, USA. It's a lengthy and comprehensive document which alleges that Dotcom and his co-accused have made a lot of money from Megauploads over an extended period using business practices which might not be especially kosher. It will, of course, be up to a Court in the USA to determine guit or innocence, but the indictment makes a pretty compelling case to our bush-lawyer eyes.
And then there's the issue of Dotcom's immigration status. This story is The Telegraph suggests that Dotcom is no stranger to the Courts. So it begs the question; how did he satisfy the "good character" requirement for applicants for New Zealand residence? Were his past "indiscretions" even disclosed?
There are many, many questions hanging over Kim Dotcom and his business associates. We reckon that the best way for those questions to be cleaned up is for the men to be extradited to the USA, where they can have their day in Court. And we're not at all concerned that the NZ Police have helped to facilitate this through the arrest of Dotcom yesterday.
@norightturnnz Idiot/Savant
15 comments:
The panic room is no surprise. I imagine alot of palaces like that have them now. The fear of kidnap or home invasion would mean these are probably design features nowadays.
The shotgun is sinister and more telling.
I believe his previous convictions related to insider trading and hacking - both of which were eventually wiped from his record after a long period of law abiding and a German amnesty on historic convictions.
I could be wrong though.
As for him satisfying the "Good character" thing in order to obtain NZ residence - i don't believe he did. He was prevented by Simon Power from purchasing the Chrisco mansion last year because his wiped convictions meant he did not satisfy that whole good character requirement that needs to be met in order for foreigners to purchase property / land here.
It was all well reported at the time.
File sharing laws are a very contentious and almost completely grey area. It seems to me that it is very odd that the US has this much control over anyone - including their assets - in New Zealand.
Exactly how they are going to prove how much money Dotcom received out of breaking copyrite laws will be interesting.
Yay for the Police State and New Zealand bending over and licking the US's behind.
@ Jackie; I'd suggest you read the full indictment. It contains a pretty comprehensive (72 page) list of what is being alleged, how much money was being moved around the place, and correspondence between the defendants which will probably not reflect too well on them in Court.
As regards his convictions, he has more recent "form" that the original hacking charge. I've added the link to the story from the Telegraph which gives some detail on this.
Assuming Mr Dotcom has a fire-arms license the shotgun, like the panic room is both understandable and legal as far as I understand.
I find it worrying that these people were refused bail.
Is upsetting corporate American rip-off artists a worse crime than murder?
I think the fact that the US will be applying to extradite the men is probably quite a significant factor in the decision to remand them in custody.
Possession of a firearms licence wouldn't validate possession of sawn off shotguns.
Is upsetting corporate American rip-off artists a worse crime than murder?
Yep - it would appear so. The very same judge that refused these men bail is the judge that bailed Ashkay Chand on kidnapping charges - only for him to go one step further and murder his victim - Christie marceau.
So it would appear that the answer to your question would be a big, fat, yes.
DO NOT PISS OFF CORPORATE AMERICAN CON ARTISTS.
As far as I am aware, the police are usually positive about the public using legal burglar alarms and elaborate security measures. At the very least, CCTV security footage means they often don't have to much sleuthing. And given the general media driven hysteria around crime, it is no surprise an eccentric and rich man would have a panic room. Nothing illegal or even that sinister there.
"...Once they gained entry into this room they found Mr Dotcom near a firearm which had the appearance of a shortened shotgun..."
Read that statement. Near? How near is near to the police? 1 metre? Five metres? In a properly approved gunsafe in the panic room? I see the police succeeded in letting your credulous imagination join the dots. The cops don't say that it was a "sawn off" shotgun. That is because it wasn't a sawn off shotgun. The weapon was a shortened shotgun of a length that would be classed as a handgun under NZ law, that is roughly what the cops said in the TV/radio interview. In other words, it had a pistol grip. Not an illegally cut down (with the shady implications of being stolen and cut down furtively) weapon. You can buy perfectly legal pistol grip shotguns on the internet from gun city. It is just as likely someone purchased one from a US website that under NZ law was short enough to be a handgun. It is jusat as likely that this may simply mean whoever the gun owner/licence holder was not aware of what constitutes a handgun under NZ law.
Significantly, the police - who delight in making the trifecta of "drugs, cash and firearms" with fearmongering and triumphalist press releases - didn't mention drugs at all, or prostitution (amazing for an obese mega rich dude with what looks like a weakness for the ladies), didn't mention "illegally obtained or stolen" in relation to the firearm (note the singular) and the "cash seized" was actually in bank accounts, not as rolled up thousand U. S. dollar notes ready to snort coke of a hookers arse as the police would like the public to vicariously imagine.
I may be yet to be proved wrong. But the so far the police have used a farrago of innuendo to do their usual good job of smearing the suspect in the court of public opinion before case gets anywhere near a judge or jury.
Anon 9:43 is awesome.
I dont think he owns the mansion, some of the news stories said its owned by the people who (used to ?) own Chrisco's.
...perhaps some of their troubles a few years ago explains the panic room
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10750824
It would appear - from that article - that our government thought that Kim Dotcom had a good enough character to buy ten million dollars worth of government bonds, and make a large donation to the Christchurch earthquake appeal (I notice you don't give him credit for that INV - better just focus on the conspiracies!) - he was good enough to buy his way into residency here - but due to a juvenile criminal record which consisted of hacking and minor insider trading - which had been wiped under Germany's "clean slate" legislation - he just wasn't good enough to actually purchase property here.
Lets not forget the Auckland City Council being happy to take one million dollars worth of fireworks off Kim for the 2010 - 11 Auckland City New Years celebrations - and the people of Auckland who all got to enjoy that.
So much for the big bad criminal who is no stranger to the courts and of such bad character that he should be put on the first flight out of here - like you would have us believe INV.
Oh noooo lets not let the truth get in the way of a big beat up.
As for that Chrisco mansion - that in itself is proof of how it is ok to steal off the poor but heaven forbid there even be a suspicion that someone took a cent off the rich - you get dawn raided and have everything you own taken off you by the State.
Chrisco - rip off the poor. I don't see anyone seizing their mansion or putting a stop to their awful schemes.
"and minor insider trading"
In 2001, Kim Dotcom (then known as Kim Schmitz) purchased a mountain of shares in a nearly bankrupt company called LetsBuyIt.com. He revealed to the public that he'd invest $100 million in the company. Share prices rocketed 300%, earning him $1.5 million in profit--but also landed him an insider trading conviction in Germany.
I'd like a "minor" piece of that!
I wonder if the New Zealand government will be forced to pay back all the money that they were happy to take off Dotcom - you know - because they now consider it to be proceeds of crime?
You seem to be taking a deep interest in this Jackie, and mounting a very strong defence of Mr Dotcom. Is there something you need to disclose?
"wonder if the New Zealand government will be forced to pay back all the money that they were happy to take off Dotcom..."
What money? It's unlikely he's even a tax resident.
Post a Comment