Kim Dotcom, the New Zealand resident accused of copyright infringements worth US$500 million and money laundering worth up to US$175 million, had bank accounts with Kiwibank and the Bank of New Zealand.
A 72-page indictment from a Grand Jury in the US District Court of Virginia was issued over the weekend showing Dotcom's financial affairs. The indictment was published after Dotcom and six of his colleagues from his Megaupload company were arrested in raids on the Dotcom mansion property they occupied near Coatesville north of Auckland.
The indictment showed US$50 million had been seized from bank accounts around the world, including "Kiwibank, Account No. XX-XXXX-XXXX922-00, in the name of
Megastuff Limited Nominee Account No. 1 and Bank of New Zealand, Account No. XX-XXXX-XXXX200-04, in the name of Cleaver Richards Trust Account for Megastuff Limited."
The indictment alleges Dotcom used New Zealand and bank accounts in New Zealand to launder money obtained from selling subscriptions to and advertising on a range of Megaupload sites that allowed users and subscribers to upload copyrighted material such as movies and music and then share it with with other users and subscribers.
"On or about March 15, 2010, a member of the Mega Conspiracy created Megastuff Limited, a New Zealand company, that has facilitated the transfer to New Zealand of
millions of dollars in illicit proceeds and assets for the personal financial gain of DOTCOM and other conspirators, as well as to facilitate additional operations of the Mega Conspiracy," the indictment said.
The indictment also showed Dotcom had bought New Zealand government bonds and held them through Computershare.
Stuff reported that Dotcom obtained New Zealand residency in 2010 after buying NZ$10 million worth of government bonds. Immigration NZ said Dotcom had disclosed his previous convictions and jail sentences in Germany for insider trading when applying for residency, but it had used clauses in the Immigration Act allowing it to exercise discretion in allowing residency.
This article was first published in our email for paid subscribers this morning. See here for more details and to subscribe.
42 Comments
If 'e gets bail it could provoke a Diplomatic Incident with USA . If 'e dosent get bail and gets shipped off to US (G-Bay for a bit of surfing?) the 'Uman Rights boys wont b 2 happy. Option 3 could be he stays in clink here on the Condition he Pays a Contribution to the IRD of say $2 Billion , to help pay for the cost of Parliament Debate when this hits the fan.
Before I start, I believe copyright is a legitimate property right, so should be defended by law, just as for any other property. That is, I am a libertarian, not a thieving anarchist.
That said, in this case, given I see opposition politicians have already jumped to the conclusion these men are guilty, I would ask of those politicians (while we, you know, wait for a trial to prove their guilt or innocence) the following:
If I build a private toll road between two major cities, not only am I likely to suspect, but I know for a certainty, that at some stage that road will be used to commit criminal acts, be it to transport stolen goods from a burglary of a house on that road, or whatever.
Am I liable for such crimes because I built a road that gave a burglar a getaway route? If so, why?
Do I have any responsibility to police my road for such criminal behaviour? If so, why?
(And after that, just as an aside, even if guilt is proven, the power of the State, in collusion with the US, shown here is frightening: from the obvious snooping of these mens' electronic communications, to the brute force of the police raid. I'm not comfortable with either side of this story).
You may well be right Bernard. I'm on neither side of this issue, just trying to point out assuming guilt here you have to answer those two questions of mine with satisfaction.
I don't have time to read 72 pages on anything at the moment: do the charges include these men actually downloading copyright material themselves, or just that their site allowed others to do so? (If the latter, then both my questions are relevant, even if they were aware of this).
My other point was that opposition MPs' have just assumed guilt here, which is downright irresponsible from people in their position: innocent until proven guilty, and QC Paul Davidson certainly seems to think innocent:
Quote:
In a strong bail application, Mr Dotcom’s lawyer Paul Davidson QC has said that the US government, including the FBI, have completely misunderstood the reality of Mr Dotcom’s business.
Mr Davidson told the court the business did not involve the illegal downloading of copyright films, television series or music.
Yes he is. These guys can afford the best, and the 'best' doesn't see guilt here, just, by inference, a bunch of oaffish State thugs throwing around their weight. It will be interesting.
Again, the State should only be going for individuals sharing files illegally, not the owners of a legitimate site for file sharing, even if - per my questions above - they may have had knowledge that by its nature, some of the traffic on their site was illegal. The only reason for this raid should be if there is hard evidence that each of these four men illegally downloaded copyright files - per 72 pages indictment, is this the case?
It will be a fascinating case to watch. I have skimmed it and 13, 14, 22-25 & 69 don't look good for them if there is sound evidence to back up the summary in the indictment. I only skimmed and there seems an awful lot of waffle in there that doesn't seem relevant.
The use of the term 'Mega Conspiracy' seems a bit out of order, as does 'engaged in criminal copyright infringement'. That is for the court to decide and the emotive language makes me suspicious of the standard of evidence they have.
I would say there will be a significant battle over admissibility of evidence and whether it has been lawfully collected.
At worst they seem to have 'aided and abetted' rather than commited the crimes alleged, but that is still criminal intent.
BH, I've seen a few indictments in my time..I would reserve judgment until you see the weight of evidence.
Still I'm sure they will get them on something, I would not want to be fighting in court concerning electronic evidence...... given the technology out there.
The whole aspect of our human rights as NZ residents in this situation leaves me cold and yet few seem to care.
off topic, but Gummy Bear Hero shouldn't miss seeing this:
http://www.etsy.com/listing/44757849/gummi-bear-version-of-the-scream-a…
How many of these album covers were designed by you , Walter ?
www.designer-daily.com/25-worst-album-covers-2968
# 15 is my favourite , I'm convinced that the " chick " on the far right is actually British comedian Stephen Fry in drag !
Don't just look at numero uno, when you can listen while you throw up!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaNk2zu4lLU
( nothing much to do here in HK on New Years Day - Year of the Dragon, LOL!)
Gotta go - the tribe's just turned up for a feed.
.... they'll be running through your dreams tonight ..... those hot chunky hairy legs , coming for you ... faster & faster ....... hot , sticky & hairy ...... beads of perspiration ......
... but you're rooted to the spot ! ..... can't move , as those amazonian legs come pumping toward you , hair trailing in the breeze .....
.. and no cut-throat razor to hand just when you most need one .......
aaaaaarrrrrrrrgggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh !
"breaking copy rights with cheap copies – by people who probably never went to art school - zh, zh."
Well I do know of one well known NZer who signed off an artwork that was done by someone else. But then she's now doing very well in NY so I guess she can say "stuffed the arts scene - there isn't any money in it!"
So it would appear that "they" have taken his money from bank accounts before he is found guilty. What happens if he is found innocent or NZ refuses extradition.. Will he get his money back? Can he sue Kiwibank for his missing assets? Something wrong with all this.
At first blush I thought he might be a victim of unreasonable anti-priracy legislation, but after reading a bit about what they were up to I'm frankly surprised he didn't end up in jail sooner.
How many international criminals are we harbouring here?
I guess we really are just Mexicans with cellphones after all !
Yes!!
A bank manager once told me that if you get money from a customer that you think is going broke, you should deposit it in a new account, Wait till it clears, remove the money and close the account. That way the receivers cant just debit your account for the money. Which apparently they are allowed to do.
The small lesson I saw in this was that with all that money he still got caught, depsite having a full time security professional that was armed.
It gives a good indication that civil unrest develops from the OWS movement, then those with the assets they wish to protect will need significant means to defend them. Dotcom has just showd that a couple of hundred million isn't enough. Those that think they are rich, well how rich really are you?
Hollywood - The big picture ..
Hollywood supported Obama and the Democrats big time $ wise last election, but there's no free lunch out there so now it's payback time. They were losing big bucks to his site.
Won't be long before KDC's on his way to the land of the free where he is assured of a fair trial and many years behind bars.
Just remember the extradition is simply so he can face trial - not his guilt or innocence and we were very happy to use the arrangement we have with the US when it suited us.
If you think that having a prominent QC argues for ones innocence - on that basis every murderer in the country is innocent. Yeh Right.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.