More assets owned by people connected with the alleged Megaupload piracy conspiracy have been frozen, and the bodyguard of the websites' boss has had new firearms charges laid against him.
A spokesman for the Official Assignee told the National Business Review High Court orders had recently been granted freezing more automobiles, real estate and jewellery connected with Megaupload.
Real estate captured by the freeze is understood to include a Coatsville property adjoining the former Chrisco mansion which Mr Dotcom bought for $4.33 million in November (well above its rateable valuation of $3.58 million).
Media reports said Wayne Tempero, the bodyguard of Megaupload boss Kim Dotcom, was charged with two counts of possession of a pistol for an unlawful purpose.
The charges follow a high-profile raid by armed police at the behest of the FBI on Mr Dotcom’s residence at the former Chrisco mansion on January 20.
Mansion snared
The new freezing orders are understood to include a 565sq m Coatesville house on two hectares adjoining the former Chrisco mansion.
According to property records Mr Dotcom purchased the property on 19 November last year for $4.33 million. The property had a rateable valuation of $3.58 million.
The smaller property purchase did not require OIO approval as it was less than 5 hectares of rural land.
More jetskis seized
A high-profile raid on the former Chrisco mansion by armed New Zealannd police on January 20, at the behest of the FBI, resulted in 16 classic and luxury cars seized by authorities.
The new freezing orders have caught a number of new boys' toys, with security registrations showing four new items were taken into the care of the OA on February 8.
The registrations show a 2011 Mercedes-Benz G55 AMG station wagon and three more Seadoo jetskis - alleged to be “proceeds of crime” - were recently added to the seizure list.
Comments and questions
I don't support IP infringement, but in how over the top this has become, indeed, how it started with the heavy handed Keystone cops, and the fact Dotcom can't even get bail under electronic detention conditions, given the non-violent nature of the alleged crimes we should rightly all be alarmed.
By the way, Alan (from http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/fma-drags-chain-hanover-mn-p-108820 ), is this, leaving a pregnant Mrs Dotcom for an hour in the rain under armed guard, the 'caring society' you were talking about?
And I note civil liberties advocate, Peter Williams, seems to be missing in action on the abuses of the civil liberties of Dotcom, Hotchin, and the former Alan Hubbard. Apparently we're not all equal after all.
very unusual as even some on murder charges can get bail nowadays
um - explain again exactly what good having an armed bodyguard is?
Slug: if you watched the Campbell Live edition on Tuesday night you'll see there were two licensed guns on the property, in a gun safe.
If you raid any farmers' property you'd expect similar. The question is do you believe the occupants would use it? There was no violent offence in Dotcom's past to indicate this. And on the event, there wasn't.
And that only pertains to the raid. Through the raid Dotcom or staff showed not one jot of violence: only that most of them were scared stupid. So why no bail?
Thanks for that Tribeless, although I'm not exactly sure it answers the question.
I would have thought perhaps 'tits-on-a-bull' would have been more appropriate.
But agree with you 100% - why no bail ?
Should we be thankful to Uncle Sam for appointing us as Guantanamo Bay of the Deep South?
Do know they have confiscated his Seadoo's, and taken away another means of escaping this Island nation, can they grant him bail now?
The Slug - the 'bodyguards' have very little to do with protection and very much to with with creating an image of self importance. When you have money, you can do that.
Sorry Slug, just re-read your question: you said armed guard, not gun.
Um, hell, I don't know how the super-rich work. I suspect though with that sort of money, hundreds of millions, ransom is always a risk (remember, he's used to European conditions, not Kiwi), so body guards would be standard? Hollywood actors and whatnot all seem to have them. And most of the politicians here. So I don't personally think it all that significant.
Plus I don't think they were 'armed' guards. The two guns on the property were in a proper gun safe, and were used for shooting (possibly).
Anyway, in the event, there were certainly no arms brought to bear, nor any question of it.
Where ia a policeman when you need him
AT THE CHRISCO MANSION where else
Shows you money talks
Can't wait to see what the authorities have to say when the Dotcom crew are released without charge and their goodies returned.
Well it looks like the asset seizure and disposal is already underway, since with so much money to be stolen there's clearly no need for any of this innocent until proven guilty nonsense. All we need now is the signed confession extracted through torture, and a show trial to formalise the guilty verdict.
And who is going to pay for all this kerfuffle if Mr. Dotcom is found to be clean?? Us, the poor taxpayer (both USA & NZ). Thats whom.
This is an embarrassment to New Zealand!
The New Zealand Police have made a spectacle of themselves, pandering to the US's with such over-the-top conduct.
That we (NZ) should conduct ourselves with so little independence or indeed intelligence in such a matter is deeply concerning.
Next time there's a burglar entering your home, ring 111 and tell them you are confessing to mass software piracy. You'll get several squad cars full of police and helicopters to boot.
I think the 'funniest' part of the John Campbell piece (per link in my first post above) is when the friend says all the police had to do was send a squad car with a couple of police and knock on the door.
Because that's all they needed to do.
And it will be interesting to see through the trials whether they, and the FBI, really do understand the IP principles behind an operation like Dotcom was operating. I don't think so. I've already read one article today on the MSM, can't remember where, where the 'expert' said so long as Dotcom 'knew' others were using his legitimate service to infringe IP, then he would be guilty.
Pardon?
Well on that reasoning, the LTSA is culpable for all the crimes committed using their roading system surely? Because they know that roads in New Zealand are certainly going to be used for committing crimes. There's no difference.
Just like the LTSA only goes after individual speeders, or whatever, so the authorities should only go for those individuals who are infringing IP, including by using services such as Dotcom was creating.
So apparently you don't need to get convicted of anything beyond reasonable doubt before losing your assets as 'proceeds of crime' statutes these days.
This outrageous display of state power should give us pause to consider the demerits of the modern criminal law consisting of statutory offences and the merits of the earlier common law criminal law consisting of recognised offences to be settled by payment of money damages. Modern statutory criminal law creates offences that are not recognised as wrong in and of themselves, and then requires funding of policing, prosecutions, convictions and criminal punishments of fines and jail.
In a free and civilised society only conduct that is recognised as wrong in and of itself should be subject to action, and the action as between a person harmed and a person causing the harm by wrongdoing should be settled typically by payment of restitution. Think about how much trouble could be saved, and how much peace we could enjoy if the law was limited to such species of wrongs and remedies.
Plods got egg all over them big time regarding this fiasco. Lame attempts at reputation damage control is all the more laughable. The chattering classes are talking about this matter daily and it is fascinating the full demographic of kiwis who suspect this guy is being set due to his future business plan impacting on the old money media industry.
Ask any Aucklander, dial 111 and a pizza delivery and I'll lay bets on who arrives first.
to all the doubters out there - you'll find he pleads guilty to everything as soon as they start the waterboarding....
Is this the David Hillary who castigated Mr Hubbard in our "free & civilised society"!
Sounds like the yanks have "gone a bit" overboard & NZ pollies "took the bait".
Great fishing today.
John key turned nz into amercias lil b!@#$% i wonder what was really discussed when he met with hollywood bigwigs for the Hobbit issue anyways he sucked them off
Dot com was going to launch, a do it your self record label... that means no record companies... then a do it your self TV station etc... he is a very dangerous man....
Another media trial in our country. Watch the laws change.
Brillant comment Slam Dunk
David Hillary you are such a hypocrite
You were the big mouth about Allan Hubbard before his death and he was not proven guilty" without reasonable doubt" as you state in your comment today. He also had all his assets frozen without a trial
NZ could do without pillocks like you - two bob each way and flakey in your convictions
Go bore someone else, somewhere else
I hope there is no connection to the deal done by Peter Jackson, John Keys and the USA film companies. Has somebody promised a special side deal?
It would indeed be hypocritical to support customary law and statutory management. Statutory management is an invention of statutory law, made out of whole cloth, to address situations of serious fraud and mismanagement in progress. Although customary law must deal with the same issues, it does so in a different way and from a different basis of legitimacy. The scope of law, both customary and statutory, to address harms while they are happening or before they happen are very limited but they do exist under customary law (such as common law). See my comments here for application of these issues to Mr Hubbard's case: http://www.lostsoulblog.com/2010/07/natural-justice-for-hubbard-take-2.html .
If you look at the record I've never wished criminal punishments on Mr Hubbard, although I did discuss what criminal charges he could face.
Mr Hubbard's alleged wrongdoings were wrong in and of themselves, and are recognised as such in a free and civilised society. The same cannot be said of Mr Dotcom's alleged wrongdoing and most if not all of this past convictions: they consist of conduct that is wrong or criminal offences only because legislators have made them punishiable.
advocated nor defended the use of statutory management for Allan Hubbard or in principle whatsoever. I'm no fan of statutory law, in case you hadn't noticed I support customary law, which must address the same issues but do so from a different basis of legitimacy.
apologies to my friend whose name went in by mistake on the above comment. Also last paragraph should have been deleted.
Basis for another Tui advt ?
Basis for another Tui advt ?
NZ is being run by big brother USA, we are a puppet in this game of chess, you do as i say not as we do.
I would like to know which parties the judge conferred with, outside of the courtroom, in deciding Dotcoms bail application?
No Such thing as innconet until proven guilty when the Americans are in charge... we need to take back control and stop being puppets to a country that has institutionalised torture and calls it enhanced interrorgation
this is a farce - yip guilty until proven innocent - rape, murder, rob, kill kids and get bail
Whatever happened to innocent till proved guilty. The US overrides all our independence and then some. Just as well we don't have oil or they would have sent the air-force to bomb him. A sad day for our right to be independent. Not a US lackey.
Post new comment or question
To share this article, click on a service below