• Full Story

Raid planner continues Dotcom evidence

Email
Print

Raid planner continues Dotcom evidence

3News NZ

Kim Dotcom

Kim Dotcom

The crime-buster who planned and oversaw the raid on Kim Dotcom's Coatesville mansion, north of Auckland, will continue giving evidence about it in the High Court at Auckland on Friday.

Detective Inspector Grant Wormald of the Organised and Financial Crime Agency of New Zealand (OFCANZ) was cross-examined by Dotcom's lawyer Paul Davison on Thursday about using the elite Special Tactics Group (STG) in the January raid.

Det Insp Wormald told the court that the members of the STG "were the best people for the job".

The STG was able to ensure that the arrests were made quickly and that the evidence was secured safely and efficiently, Det Insp Wormald said.

He said a number of risks had been identified, including the possibility that there were firearms on the property, and it was felt that the involvement of the STG could overcome a lot of the problems police faced.

This week's court hearing into the police raid on the Megaupload founder's home follows on from a ruling in late June that the search warrants used to carry out the raid were invalid.

The hearing will determine what should happen to some of the evidence seized.

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.

NZN

Post a Comment

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


(Won't be published)



Comments

7/09/2012 10:02:13 a.m.

kevin wrote:

its not that nz police think they are above the law, [haha they secretly do]
but in this country they just arent recruited for their I.Q.

11/08/2012 6:25:49 p.m.

Chargone wrote:

please note that they considered all these risks insignificant enough that they did NOT go in armoured as if expecting to be shot at. yet somehow it was threatening enough to take assault rifles in there? read that again, they were prepared to shoot people, but not to be Shot At. when the reason for doing so was the supposed risk of being shot at. think about that. also: this is a political case, right from the get go. if it's costing NZ money, then the case should be thrown out, seeing as how the US/crown prosecutors have REPEATEDLY violated standard procedure and broken laws and court orders in the pursuit of it. handing over an innocent man to be taken to court for crimes that, at least in some instances, (surprise) don't actually exist (paying your hosting bills is NOT money laundering. most of the serious crimes fall over entirely if the CIVIL copyright suit fails, the USG keeps merging civil and criminal law to make it say whatever the hell they want.) in a country known to torture prisoners (among other things) where powerful and politically connected entities are well known (with documented evidence) to basically bribe e the government to get whatever the hell they want done, and THOSE entities have made said man their enemy... ignore that it's the US for a moment and ask yourself WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU if you think 'it's costing too much' is a good reason to just Hand Him Over. seriously, if it's too expensive to keep the case going, simply acknowledge that the whole thing's a politically driven Farce and throw it out.

10/08/2012 2:24:24 p.m.

S wrote:

The NZ police were working on behalf of police in the US and the US does the same for NZ and have caught criminals on our behalf - Kim Dot Com is costing NZ ratepayers money and should be handed over to the US.

10/08/2012 8:00:22 a.m.

Mike wrote:

The raid shouldn't even be an issue.

What should be the issue is a crime is alledged in the US, and it doesn't matter if you agree with the US or not, a crime is a crime and justice should be served in courts where the crime is alledged.

Take pot smoking, its illegal, so anyone here smoking pot runs a risk of breaking the law. The US has tougher laws governing internet companies than NZ and non-compliance is a risk of breaking their law and its up to their courts to decide if someone broke the law not our media.

On the other side we had a murderer abandoned his daughter at the aiport and fled to the US to flee NZ justice. In many ways this is similar to dotcom with an alledged crime on overseas soil. Police forces around the world work together, this is standard practice, as is raids in overwhelming force to reduce injuries on both sides..

Now if we decide that the defendandant doesn't agree with the law they are alledged to have broken or just flees, this doesn't make the law go away. If your going to defend dotcom against even facing a fair trial in the US, then you will be defending any criminal who flees overseas to escape justice.

About the US laws, they require more intervention by internet companies, bit like a private post/customs office needs to check for contraband. Even NZ internet companies are moving in this this same direction to US law style compliance and we will see similar style laws here eventually. It doesn't matter if you agree with the law or not, its still the law. Our NZ internet companies moving towards more US style compliance shows where the law will move, even if it take our laws 10+ years to do so.

I dont like the crackdown by police dropping to 4kph, but if I get caught breaking the law, I'll face up to it like a man vs whinge and squeal and claiming that I did nothing wrong when I risked assessed being caught, and chose to break the law anyway.