NZ’s Dotcom raid legal, FBI taking evidence not

Police raids on Kim Dotcom’s mansion in 2012 have been declared legal, but FBI removal of electronic information seized in the search was an unauthorised breach, the Court of Appeal has found.Dotcom’s legal team was reviewing the rulings, and would likely seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court over the validity of the warrants, the internet tycoon’s lawyer Ira Rothken said. see:New Zealand appeals court reverses ruling that Megaupload warrants were illegal
On Wednesday in New Zealand, a Court of Appeal ruled that the warrants used to seize property belonging to Megaupload founder and CEO Kim Dotcom were legal. The court’s decision reversed a 2012 High Court decision in which a chief judge ruled that the warrants were too vague and did not define the parameters of the search and seizure sufficiently.Since the raid on his New Zealand property in January 2012, Kim Dotcom has been waging legal battles with New Zealand and United States authorities. As Ars reported in 2012, New Zealand police cut their way through locks and into Dotcom’s ‘panic room,’ seized 18 luxury vehicles, secured NZ$11 million in cash from his bank accounts, and grabbed 150TB of data from 135 of Dotcom’s digital devices. of Appeal: No miscarriage of justice in Dotcom raid
Kim Dotcom’s lawyers and the Crown are both considering appealing aspects of a Court of Appeal ruling that search warrants on Dotcom’s Coatesville mansion were valid.The warrants, executed by police on the properties of Dotcom and his associate Bram van der Kolk in January 2012, resulted in the seizure of some 135 electronic items. Win for US, New Zealand Court Upholds Search Warrants on Megaupload Founder Dotcom [IDG]
A court in New Zealand has ruled that warrants used to search the homes of Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom and his colleague Bram van der Kolk were valid, but objected to the removal to the U.S. by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of copies of the electronic items seized.The Court of Appeal of New Zealand ruled Wednesday that the warrants were defective in some respects, but the defects were not sufficient to treat them as “nullities.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.