• Full Story

$6 million returned to Dotcom

Email
Print

$6 million returned to Dotcom

3News NZ

Kim Dotcom

Kim Dotcom

By 3 News online staff

Kim Dotcom has had $6 million dollars in seized assets released to him following a High Court ruling yesterday.

The multi-millionaire founder of Megaupload has been fighting for his money and assets since they were frozen by police in January.

The funds were released to allow Dotcom to pay $2.6 million in legal fees as well as $1 million for future costs and $1 million for the rent of his Coatesville residence.

Dotcom wants to purchase the mansion and could legally do so at the end of next month.

A court ruling in late June found that the search warrants used to carry out the January raid on the mansion were invalid.

Dotcom and his three co-accused, Mathias Ortmann, Finn Batato and Bram Van der Kolk, face copyright, racketeering and money laundering charges in the US.

An extradition hearing is scheduled for March next year.

3 News

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

17/09/2012 1:40:22 a.m.

dennis wrote:

Despite thousands of hours of Crown law time the Urewera raids were a sham. Despite there never, ever being a crime of this nature prosecuted in NZ the legal eagles again determine erroneously that raids are appropriate. All under Collins. 8 months have passed - on Thursday. Meanwhile let's play monopoly and make Galbraith the banker while we stare-out the US Federal Judge. Jurisprudence? There is none unless there is clearly proof of a crime that would be charged by New Zealand. This is not law. It is a game of power

15/09/2012 10:36:09 p.m.

dennis wrote:

Dr Collins is responsible for all NZ legal advice to US enabling this up until his judicial appointment. Read and wonder. The site owner was raided himself because of the Urewera raid. http://www.kiwisfirst.co.nz/index.asp?PageID=2145848740

13/09/2012 12:31:43 p.m.

dennis wrote:

Type: 'Alan Galbraith QC squeaky clean' (without quotes) on Google's search engine and press enter. Voila mon argent: "If, for example, you had advised me that a Judge of the Supreme Court had accepted a bribe you would not expect con?dentiality to attach to such advice" in the first result! Gosh Kim, you can't help but win with 3000000 Lotto tickets

11/09/2012 3:21:58 p.m.

dennis wrote:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” Please read this Judge Dawson. Justice Wilson erred because? Whose responsibility was it to point out the error prior to proceeding? The Q.C.’s or the Judge’s? “His Rich Hill Stud Farm - which he owned with fellow Queen's Counsel Alan Galbraith - was printing money, returning to each of them roughly a million dollars per year”. “I appoint Mr. Alan Galbraith QC to exercise the supervisory regime defined in this judgment as set out at [54]-[62] above relating to the legal expenses of Mr. Dotcom and Mrs. Dotcom, until further order of this Court”. Just how much does this old-boys and girl’s network expect Dotcom’s gravy train to support, despite acknowledging many months back that the funds were restrained illegally? Simply appoint a QC to determine if there is an extradition offence alleged. You are not shepherds and we are not sheep

7/09/2012 1:32:34 p.m.

dennis wrote:

Seriously, who, out of all the judges this has been before, has bothered to consider if the 4 are genuinely charged with "extradition offences", context being a presupposition as remarked by District Court Judge Harvey when considering making orders to disclose?

6/09/2012 7:27:29 p.m.

Richard wrote:

Mr Dotcom - shame the New Zealand government further with sharing this footage around the world: youtube.com/watch?v=nKL7KllorWw and youtube.com/watch?v=u7RFiz4lShA. Crazy behaviour by National, Labour and greens.

1/09/2012 8:32:53 p.m.

dennis wrote:

May I ask which judge ruled that these are extradition offences, McNaughton, Harvey or Dawson, and where can I find that ruling?

1/09/2012 1:28:28 p.m.

dennis wrote:

How can he borrow 6 mill without any income? Don't sell your cars, Kim. Someone with a bit of guts just send him the money. Absolutely guarantee you'll get it back. There are a lot more weeds far more noxious than uncovered so far. Better to sack the whole executive and re-employ. Don't blame the Yanks. They don't know any better, and they would have only acted on New Zealand advice. Legal Fraternity give him back his income right now and stop thinking that all New Zealanders are easily-led sheep

1/09/2012 11:47:54 a.m.

dennis wrote:

Who believes copyright infringement by opening up your computer to others to read and write to is an extradition offence? Justice Asher asked the question in February at a bail appeal. If he had demanded that the lawyers clarify that (as he should have) I don't think there would have been a platform left from which to create $3000000 plus in invoices

31/08/2012 6:49:26 p.m.

dennis wrote:

Graham. David Harvey was reported carelessly and out of context. Whoever quoted that was irresponsible because he was putting a lot of thought into extracting the evidence in this case in a very balanced way and Megaupload.com might well be returned by now because he knew what he was doing