Kim Dotcom's possessions could be sold

13/02/2012 11:58:16 a.m.

Chris wrote:

Having been involved in NZ's only Cabercafe prosecution for movie piracy, it seems there certainly are two sets of rules. In the case where I was invovled, the 'accused' was given the onus of innocence before ANYTHING was done. In this case, not the same. Still the law allows for this process and that is why Kim has a top notch barrister in attendance.

12/02/2012 12:38:42 a.m.

cyril wrote:

How do they have the right to confiscate and sell a persons property when he hasnt even been charged yet. Also if he is tried and convicted in the US can they confiscate his property in NZ. I know very little about what he has supposed to have done but this whole thing sucks.

10/02/2012 9:37:33 p.m.

Corruption? wrote:

This is just a quick correction to my last comment. When I said "...subsequent prosecution", it should have read "...subsequent attempt at a prosecution". This is because CAA pulled the charges in Court, when they realised they had no case against Heli Ag. And this is where the "miss-use of power and resources" comes into it, as CAA used their powers to keep Heli Ag grounded, with no court required.

10/02/2012 7:16:07 p.m.

Corruption? wrote:

I don't know much about what Kim Dotcom is supposed to have done, or what the effects of his alleged crimes are. What I do know is, the 'Shoot first and ask questions later' type of process - being used by authorities - which is becoming common in NZ, is causing devastation to innocent people. Other cases I know of, where this seems to have happened are, Heli Ag [A Central Otago base Helicopter company] being shut by down CAA, before any investigating had been done. Then CAA seem to have miss-used their powers and their nearly unlimited resources - when flaws have shown up in their investigation [which was based on hearsay from a competitor] and subsequent prosecution, to effectively rob Heli Ag of any chance of defence. This is, unless Heli Ag are prepared to use up all of their resources and more, by fighting back at CAA. Then there's the Berryman's case, this is where an Army built bridge, collapsed on the Berryman's farm, killing Ken Richards in 1994. The Berryman's spent 15 years fighting through the courts, trying to get justice. They also used up all of their resources and more, fighting against OSH [who did the 'Shoot first' thing] and the Army. Both of these entities also have, nearly unlimited resources available to them, in order to be able to have kept themselves clear of any wrong doing - either from the charges that were laid by OSH, or the Army leaving the Berrymans, to swing, for the Army's own blunder. Compare that, to the treatment Clint Rickards got [on full pay and a new squad car etc] while he was under investigation and he was eventually kicked off the Police force. This would seem to be another example of corruption, in our authorities.

10/02/2012 12:47:49 p.m.

Niall wrote:

This is 1984 stuff. What power has the government to sieze goods without a conviction? Especially if it is from the United States? Has NZ police even seen all the evidence? how do they know its not fabricated?

Also, if you can confiscate illegal goods with no proof, why haven't the police confiscated all the assets from the failed finance company directors who HAVE been convicted.

This feels very much like an America witchhunt with NZ as the suckers again. The next thing will be suddenly Dotcom is in the United states with a rendition order and no-one will see him again. How now the bill of rights and 1984.

10/02/2012 11:17:48 a.m.

Em wrote:

Shocking! I agree with K P..so if the govt allowed to step in and take all your stuff if they suspect you of buying it with money obtained 'illegally', couldn't they do they same to the CEO's and Politicians involved with money laundering and using tax payers money? Double standards much...

10/02/2012 9:02:43 a.m.

RAS wrote:

I truly don't understand how any department or authority can go into this man's home and remove his belongings when he has not been proven guilty of anything yet. Where are his wife and children for goodness sake they have no money and what now, nowhere to live? Something is very wrong here and it is not Mr Dotcom.

9/02/2012 10:31:11 p.m.

Heli Ag wrote:

We are innocent until proven guilty "wrong" We are guilty until proven Innocent. The govt makes no apology for this. In fact it is more common for enforcement to inflict severe, non refundable penalties at the onset of an investigation, this can be years before your day in court. People should know this well done 3 news. I have lived through a similar scenario- Enforcement swooped on my property confiscation items, suspended my privileges and plant crippling me financially. over one year later the chargers pertaining to the suspensions were withdrawn "in Court". One year on I am watching the finance people eye up the last of my assets. Its not the case or the outcome, it's the process.

9/02/2012 10:29:05 p.m.

Paul wrote:

I don't think you should take a mans stuff until you have given him a chance to tell his side of the story and at least have a trial. I think the athorities are jumping the gun a bit here.

9/02/2012 8:09:25 p.m.

Andrew Harris wrote:

NZ bows to USA on all terms. Murderous USA the neo conservative global killers.