5 ms·

He can still appeal the case to a higher court in New Zealand, and may have a chance there. Copyright infringement isn't extraditable from New Zealand, because

He can still appeal the case to a higher court in New Zealand, and may have a chance there. Copyright infringement isn't extraditable from New Zealand, because it's not a crime there. To counteract this problem, the US also charged him with conspiracy to commit a crime and money laundering, which are extraditable offenses in New Zealand. However, those charges are wholly dependent upon the main copyright infringement charge. The conspiracy charge is based upon conspiring with others to commit copyright infringement, and the money laundering charge is based upon his use of the proceeds of an alleged crime - namely, copyright infringement. Based upon this, a higher court may very well reverse the lower court's decision. Kim Dotcom isn't going anywhere until he has exhausted all of his extradition appeals.

ptaipale 11y ago
Even if copyright infringement is not extraditable in New Zealand, it is still a crime, right? So how would it in any way invalidate the extraditability of money laundering "based" on some crime, if money laundering in itself is extraditable even without any other crime having committed by the accused? Money laundering would be extraditable even stand-alone, right? Yes, of course appeals will always be used to delay extraditions and anything. This is not really to the credit of justice systems, though it may sometimes lead to outcomes that are "right". (I just recently got decision for my friend's mother's residence permit where our local government tired out after a repeated appeal process of seven years, after two full rounds of all court stages plus the ECHR. We lost in the courts at all stages but the authorities just realised that this is never going to end so it's better to give in.)
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - adventured 11y ago
    > Actually, it's not. There is no criminal copyright infringement in New Zealand. "In some circumstances, a person may commit a criminal offence if they make, import, sell, hire or distribute infringing copies of works. Criminal liability can attract fines of up to $150,000 and imprisonment for up to 5 years." http://www.copyright.org.nz/viewFaq.php?faq=360 http://www.copyright.org.nz/viewFaq.php?faq=360
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - gcb0 11y ago
      that's a unofficial site. and weaselly worded. "in some circumstances" which may be falsifying documents to get hold of the material, using the material to defame someone, or something else, we don't know because they happily omit. and then next phrase is already about criminal liability, which may or may not be because of copyright infringement.
      - pera 11y ago
        http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1994/0143/latest/DLM346602.html http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1994/0143/latest/D...
        anonbanker 11y ago
        Far more nuanced than great-grandparent's link implied.
  - mahranch 11y ago
    > Actually, it's not. There is no criminal copyright infringement in New Zealand. How does that work? New Zealand is a signatory to the Berne Convention and also to WIPO. That means they agree to hold similar copyright laws and protections. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPO_Copyright_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPO_Copyright_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention
    - Hermel 11y ago
      Afaik, wipo and the berne convention do not require copyright infringent to be a crime. It can also be dealt with in civil law (as opposed to criminal law). As an example, breaching a contract is not a crime either in most cases.
- forinti 11y ago
  IANAL, but, as far as I know, there is no concept of stand-alone money laundering. You can only launder money that you came upon through crime. So, if there was no crime to begin with, it makes no sense to accuse him of money-laundering.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
    - gcb0 11y ago
      are you even reading the comments? he declared money as "proceed from my company: data storage site" and the US claims that money laundering because it was proceeds from buying and selling illegal materials.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
  - adrianmacneil 11y ago
    Unsure about NZ, but at least in the US, "structuring" your payments in a way that would avoid AML checks is a crime by itself, regardless of whether you obtained the money legally.
takeda 11y ago
I'm still puzzled how he can be extradited if he is not US citizen and did not commit any crime on US soil.
- lettergram 11y ago
  I'm left scratching my head at this as well. I'm assuming (without reading into it) they are arguing that it was U.S. copy righted material that was taken, and distributed on U.S. soil (i.e. the internet). Julian Assange faces similar offense[1], though in this case they are claiming national security as opposed to copy right infringement. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange
- newman314 11y ago
  One word: overreach
- rpgmaker 11y ago
  Imperialism. What the US says goes.
- alasdair_ 11y ago
  It happens often. See "Mr. Nice" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_Nice_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_Nice_(book) - he was a pot smuggler who had never entered the states and was not a UK citizen but the DEA managed to extradite him anyway.
- jeza 11y ago
  Hew Raymond Griffiths, had never been to the US. He was extradited from Australia to the US for something that isn't considered a crime in Australia. The irony is this part: "Griffiths finally returned to Australia on 2 March 2008, after 5 weeks as an illegal alien in the US immigration detention system following his release from prison on 26 January 2008 (Australia Day). A condition of his repatriation to Australia was that he never again re-enter the United States of America, a country he had never visited before being extradited to it." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hew_Raymond_Griffiths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hew_Raymond_Griffiths
vorg 11y ago
> Kim Dotcom isn't going anywhere until he has exhausted all of his extradition appeals A NZ newspaper just published an article about the likely process at http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11565802 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objecti... 1. Appeal to the NZ High Court on whether the law was applied correctly 2. Appeal to NZ Court of Appeals 3. Appeal to NZ Supreme Court 4. NZ Justice Minister decides whether there's any reasons in the Extradition Act that meant extradition should not be ordered, including humanitarian and political persecution reasons.

ptaipale 11y ago

Even if copyright infringement is not extraditable in New Zealand, it is still a crime, right? So how would it in any way invalidate the extraditability of money laundering "based" on some crime, if money laundering in itself is extraditable even without any other crime having committed by the accused? Money laundering would be extraditable even stand-alone, right? Yes, of course appeals will always be used to delay extraditions and anything. This is not really to the credit of justice systems, though it may sometimes lead to outcomes that are "right". (I just recently got decision for my friend's mother's residence permit where our local government tired out after a repeated appeal process of seven years, after two full rounds of all court stages plus the ECHR. We lost in the courts at all stages but the authorities just realised that this is never going to end so it's better to give in.)

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- adventured 11y ago
  > Actually, it's not. There is no criminal copyright infringement in New Zealand. "In some circumstances, a person may commit a criminal offence if they make, import, sell, hire or distribute infringing copies of works. Criminal liability can attract fines of up to $150,000 and imprisonment for up to 5 years." http://www.copyright.org.nz/viewFaq.php?faq=360 http://www.copyright.org.nz/viewFaq.php?faq=360
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - gcb0 11y ago
    that's a unofficial site. and weaselly worded. "in some circumstances" which may be falsifying documents to get hold of the material, using the material to defame someone, or something else, we don't know because they happily omit. and then next phrase is already about criminal liability, which may or may not be because of copyright infringement.
    - pera 11y ago
      http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1994/0143/latest/DLM346602.html http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1994/0143/latest/D...
      - anonbanker 11y ago
        Far more nuanced than great-grandparent's link implied.
- mahranch 11y ago
  > Actually, it's not. There is no criminal copyright infringement in New Zealand. How does that work? New Zealand is a signatory to the Berne Convention and also to WIPO. That means they agree to hold similar copyright laws and protections. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPO_Copyright_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPO_Copyright_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention
  - Hermel 11y ago
    Afaik, wipo and the berne convention do not require copyright infringent to be a crime. It can also be dealt with in civil law (as opposed to criminal law). As an example, breaching a contract is not a crime either in most cases.
forinti 11y ago
IANAL, but, as far as I know, there is no concept of stand-alone money laundering. You can only launder money that you came upon through crime. So, if there was no crime to begin with, it makes no sense to accuse him of money-laundering.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - gcb0 11y ago
    are you even reading the comments? he declared money as "proceed from my company: data storage site" and the US claims that money laundering because it was proceeds from buying and selling illegal materials.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
- adrianmacneil 11y ago
  Unsure about NZ, but at least in the US, "structuring" your payments in a way that would avoid AML checks is a crime by itself, regardless of whether you obtained the money legally.

takeda 11y ago

I'm still puzzled how he can be extradited if he is not US citizen and did not commit any crime on US soil.

lettergram 11y ago
I'm left scratching my head at this as well. I'm assuming (without reading into it) they are arguing that it was U.S. copy righted material that was taken, and distributed on U.S. soil (i.e. the internet). Julian Assange faces similar offense[1], though in this case they are claiming national security as opposed to copy right infringement. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange
newman314 11y ago
One word: overreach
rpgmaker 11y ago
Imperialism. What the US says goes.
alasdair_ 11y ago
It happens often. See "Mr. Nice" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_Nice_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_Nice_(book) - he was a pot smuggler who had never entered the states and was not a UK citizen but the DEA managed to extradite him anyway.
jeza 11y ago
Hew Raymond Griffiths, had never been to the US. He was extradited from Australia to the US for something that isn't considered a crime in Australia. The irony is this part: "Griffiths finally returned to Australia on 2 March 2008, after 5 weeks as an illegal alien in the US immigration detention system following his release from prison on 26 January 2008 (Australia Day). A condition of his repatriation to Australia was that he never again re-enter the United States of America, a country he had never visited before being extradited to it." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hew_Raymond_Griffiths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hew_Raymond_Griffiths

vorg 11y ago

> Kim Dotcom isn't going anywhere until he has exhausted all of his extradition appeals A NZ newspaper just published an article about the likely process at http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11565802 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objecti... 1. Appeal to the NZ High Court on whether the law was applied correctly 2. Appeal to NZ Court of Appeals 3. Appeal to NZ Supreme Court 4. NZ Justice Minister decides whether there's any reasons in the Extradition Act that meant extradition should not be ordered, including humanitarian and political persecution reasons.