DOJ Argues That Even If Case Against Megaupload Is Dismissed, It Still Can Hold Its Assets

from the well-of-course dept

As the fight over whether or not the US can even charge Megaupload under criminal law continues, the US Justice Department continues to make quite extraordinary claims. If you don't recall, the US filed criminal charges against Megaupload and a bunch of its execs. However, as a US judge noted back in April, under US law it might actually be impossible for the case against Megaupload to proceed, because criminal law requires "serving" the defendant, and the law also says you can only serve companies at their US address. Megaupload is not based in the US and has no US address. The DOJ is trying to tapdance around what the law actually says, but (as Megaupload points out) they can't point to a single real legal citation that supports their position. The DOJ is basically arguing that the law should be what they want it to be... because otherwise the DOJ wouldn't like it very much.

Tim Lee continues his always excellent reporting, by providing some details of the latest court hearings on the matter where the judge definitely seems to recognize that Megaupload may be legally correct:
[Judge O'Grady] noted that the "plain language" of the law required sending notice to the company's address in the United States. "You don't have a location in the United States to mail it to," he said. "It's never had an address" in the United States.
Perhaps even more interesting is the claim by the DOJ that even if the Judge rules against them on this issue, they should still be able to freeze Megaupload's assets, because the cases against the individuals will continue.
Not only that, but the government believes it can continue to freeze Megaupload's assets and paralyze its operations even if the judge grants the motion to dismiss. That's because in the government's view, the assets are the proceeds of criminal activity and the prosecution against founder Kim Dotcom will still be pending. The fact that the assets are in the name of Megaupload rather than its founder is of no consequence, the government claimed.
That's a trickier argument to make, though, not a totally crazy one. It's more or less based on the same controversial theory under which the Justice Department seizes and forfeits things like hip hop blogs because someone might possibly get some infringing music from them. But here it's even more complex, because there is supposed to be a separation between the corporation as an entity and the execs who work there as entities. It's part of the reason why "limited liability" corporations exist. There are, of course, ways to get past that, but the government would need to make that case, and they may have a hard time doing so. Either way, it does appear that they're legitimately worried about this rather massive error on their part in bringing the case.

Perhaps, next time, the DOJ won't rush into highly questionable lawsuits just because the MPAA is upset about a website.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2012 @ 8:58pm

    Resources to understand what is happening.

    http://www.ofii.org/policy-issues/legal-a-regulatory-reform/691-personal-jurisdiction- over-foreign-manufacturers.html
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_jurisdiction_in_Internet_cas es_in_the_United_States

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_jurisdiction
    https://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/Minimum_contacts

    Commercial activities

    Merely placing products in the "stream of commerce" is insufficient to provide minimum contacts with the states where the products end up. The defendant must make an effort to market in the forum state or otherwise purposefully avail himself of the resources of that state.[8] However, since only four of the nine Supreme Court Justices joined the opinion that required a defendant to do more than place his products in a "stream of commerce," some lower courts still rule that doing so is adequate for a court to exercise personal jurisdiction.

    Claims arising from the tort of defamation are treated by a different standard.[9]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_contacts

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjec t_matter_jurisdiction
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_rem_jurisdiction

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.