An actor in police costume greets Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom (L) as he launches his new file sharing site "Mega" in Auckland January 20, 2013.
IN PHOTO: An actor in police costume greets Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom (L) as he launches his new file sharing site "Mega" in Auckland January 20, 2013. Dotcom, who is fighting extradition to face U.S. charges of internet piracy, has launched a new cloud storage service called "Mega" at a function at Dotcom Mansion in Coatsville, Auckland. Reuters/Nigel Marple

New Zealand’s expat web tycoon Kim Dotcom, who is facing legal cases on copy right violations and money laundering from the US authorities, has received the support of prominent US legal experts in arguing against the US Justice Department’s action of seizing his assets amounting to millions of dollars. The US legal experts have interpreted the move as "dangerous" and violative of the due process rights.

Dotcom had been in legal trouble since 2012 and faced a police raid at his New Zealand mansion near Auckland. It was done at the behest of the US, which wanted him to stand trial on copyright and money-laundering charges with respect to his actions at megapload.com. However, he has denied all charges. The case on Dotcom’s extradition to the US will be coming up in September.

Unconstitutional

In March 2015, the United States Government won a civil forfeiture case against Megaupload and its founder Dotcom on the ground of the latter is a fugitive. As a result, the web tycoon lost an estimated US$67 million worth of assets to the US in terms of cash, property, luxury cars, jet skis, televisions and art. Dotcom appealed against the US decision and claimed that his basic rights and due process have been violated. Accordingly, the Cato Institute, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Institute for Justice filed an independent brief in support of Dotcom and other Megaupload defendants.

The legal brief said that the “present case concerns amici because the federal government's aggressive use of forfeiture poses a grave threat to property rights and cause irreparable injury when property is forfeited without any hearing.” They said stripping the claimants of due process rights is unconstitutional and dangerous.

Later, the Cato Institute explained that the Fifth Amendment's “due process” clause requires “an opportunity to be heard and an opportunity to defend" against government actions against an individual's property. The agency observed that unlike an escaped criminal appellant scorning the court's jurisdiction in civil forfeiture, in Dotcom’s case, it is the government that dragged him and others to court. So, Cato argued that the courts should not only allow Dotcom and other Megaupload defendants the opportunity to challenge the seizure, but also consider “striking down as unconstitutional” all uses of fugitive disentitlement in civil-forfeiture cases.

Devices To America

Meanwhile, a Court of Appeal in New Zealand has ordered the Attorney-General to issue new directions to the police to send the cloned devices seized from Kim Dotcom to the US authorities. In a decision, Justices Douglas White, Tony Randerson and Lynton Stevens set aside previous High Court rulings against it and gave the go ahead.

(For feedback/comments, contact the writer at k.kumar@ibtimes.com.au)