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.
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.
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.