• Full Story

Dotcom now able to buy mansion

Email
Print

Dotcom now able to buy mansion

3News NZ

Kim Dotcom (Reuters)

Kim Dotcom (Reuters)

Travel limits imposed after his arrest have had a notable side effect for internet millionaire Kim Dotcom - he can now buy his mansion, if he can get the money.

Dotcom's bid to the Overseas Investment Office to buy the $30 million Coatesville mansion north of Auckland was turned down in July 2011 after then-Associate Finance Minister Simon Power said he didn't meet good character requirements because of his convictions in Germany.

But New Zealand residents who have been in the country for 12 months don't have to go through the OIO, and Dotcom's bail conditions on the internet piracy charges which prevent him leaving New Zealand means he now passes that test.

"So I think that by virtue of his incarceration and his being held he will now reach an eligibility point to buy whatever he wishes as a New Zealander because he is a resident," Land Information Minister Maurice Williamson said on Thursday.

"So it may be that he will be quite soon, depending if he can get his hands on whatever the sum of money is that's involved. The media keeps saying $30 million for the Coatesville mansion.

"He will qualify as does any New Zealand citizen."

Mr Williamson said it makes no difference if the person in question was in the country of their own free will or not.

Dotcom's biggest barrier to buying the property is that his assets have been frozen since his arrest.

Dotcom, arrested in January, is fighting a United States bid to extradite him to face internet piracy charges.

The extradition hearing is due to be held next year.

NZN

Post a Comment

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


(Won't be published)



Comments

20/01/2013 1:29:05 a.m.

dennis wrote:

To sign an arrest warrant Judge McNaughton makes - effectively on oath - two spurious claims. The first is that he holds a reasonable believe that extradition offences exist. I doubt that. I dont believe he was expert enough to know one way or another. Had he consulted Judge Harvey the reasonableness of such belief would be tested by the fact that the US is attempting to utilize what would ordinarily be civil culpability with criminal liability. File hosting would not ordinarily be charged as a crime in New Zealand and, without precedent, would be definately unreasonable to regard as an extradition offence. To do so would negate the principle of double criminality. That is the offence in that country must have an equal in this country. The second spurious claim is that the provisional warrant was required urgently. That is best summed up by Sir Paul Holmes: "A man spends years building a $2.5 billion international business in broad daylight and suddenly the FBI come panting to New Zealand that this man has to be dragged off the streets and locked away". Judge Harvey and Judge Dawson have maintained the validity of the warrant by ordering bail conditions and adjournments based on what are clearly spurious claims. This is wrong. The magnitude of the harm done is too huge to continue a facade against Judge McNaughton's arrests

1/12/2012 3:57:45 p.m.

dennis wrote:

Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure specifies which federal court may hear a particular criminal case: "Unless a statute or these rules permit otherwise, the government must prosecute an offense in a district where the offense was committed. The court must set the place of trial within the district with DUE REGARD for the convenience of the defendant and the witnesses, and the prompt administration of justice". "The locus delicti must be determined from the nature of the crime alleged and the location of the act or acts constituting it.” Location NEW ZEALAND! What on earth has this judge's warrant got to do with this house purchase, for God's sake

1/12/2012 6:27:46 a.m.

dennis wrote:

"Nothing in this section limits the evidence that may be admitted at any hearing to determine whether a defendant is eligible for surrender". It is 2 months and 11 days now since the Court of Appeal heard an appeal from the Crown Solicitor claiming that the District Court made an unreasonable request for evidence to determine the extraditable nature of the offence alleged. The outcome should have been that the Crown was censured as a vexatious litigant. But is that what we expect as 9th runner-up in the comparison of law administration and democracy?

30/11/2012 5:44:48 a.m.

dennis wrote:

Since the US legal team did not mention any other circumstances that could constitute a criminal offence in their request for mutual legal assistance, the German court concluded that their request for the recovery of assets is unfounded. Read the news occasionally Justice Potter, instead of creating it