Kim DotCom Bail Decision Reserved Until Tomorrow

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 09:21:44 PM EST
Tags: MegaUpload, Kim DotCom (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

After hearing arguments in New Zealand's High Court today on whether to grant the Crown's appeal of the decision granting bail to MegaUpload co-founder Kim DotCom, the Court reserved ruling until 4:30 p.m. tomorrow.

It doesn't sound like the Prosecution had anything more to offer than last week:

The Crown, on behalf of the US Government, argued today that there is a very real risk that Dotcom still has access to offshore funds he is linked with.

But Dotcom's lawyer Paul Davison QC says there is no evidence of this, so his client's flight risk remains low. He said it would make no sense for Dotcom to leave his family or assets behind.

I hope the Judge doesn't reverse the granting of bail. With the extradition hearing not until August, the Crown should have to show more than unsupported speculation he has sources of funds and would likely flee. So far it hasn't.

< Marijuana Legalization Makes it Onto Colorado Ballot | Court Appearance Today For Ohio Shooting Suspect T.J. Lane >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Kim DotCom Bail Decision Reserved Until Tomorrow | 3 comments (3 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I have a question... (none / 0) (#1)
by EL seattle on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 09:50:32 PM EST

...about extradition requests.

When/if the US makes its official extradition request in the next couple of days (as I understand it), will that request possibly contain more information than what has already been revealed to the NZ court so far? Or will it just be a short statement with an official 'please and thank you' added at the end?

I don't see any reason why the request itself would contain any new charges against Dotcom. But maybe it could possibly have information about the various international case(s) against the various Megaupload folks and the company itself.

The treaty (none / 0) (#2)
by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 10:57:24 PM EST

is here, see page 4.

The request shall be accompanied by a description of the person sought, a statement of the facts of the case, the text of the applicable laws of the requesting Party including the law defining the offense, the law prescribing the punishment
for the offense, and the law relating to the limitation of the legal proceedings.
When the request relates to a person who has not yet been convicted, it must also be accompanied by a warrant of arrest issued by a judge or other judicial officer of the requesting Party and by such evidence as, according to the laws of the requested Party, would justify his arrest and committal for trial if the offense had been committed there, including evidence proving the person requested is the person to whom the warrant of arrest refers.
...The warrant of arrest and deposition or other evidence, given under oath, and the judicial documents establishing the existence of the conviction, or certified copies of these documents, shall be admitted in evidence in the examination of the request for extradition when... in any case, [the documents] are certified by the principal diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in New Zealand, or when, in the case of a request emanating from the United States, in the case of a warrant it is signed and in the case of other documents they are certified by a judge, magistrate or official of the United States, and, in every case, they are sealed by the official seal of the Department of State.
...If the requested Party requires additional evidence or information to enable it to decide on the request for extradition,
such evidence or information shall be submitted to it within such time as that Party shall require.
If the person sought is under arrest and the additional evidence or information submitted as aforesaid is not sufficient or if such evidence or information is not received within the period specified by the requested Party, he shall be
discharged from custody. However, such discharge shall not bar the requesting Party from submitting another request in respect of the same offense.

: Thanks! (none / 0) (#3)
by EL seattle on Tue Feb 28, 2012 at 01:18:11 AM EST