CIV-2017-404-3103 Dotcom V A-G & Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

AUCKLAND REGISTRY
TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CIV-2017-404-
UNDER the Crown Proceedings Act 1950
BETWEEN KIM DOTCOM, of Apartment 64, 143 Quay

Street, Auckland, businessman
First plaintiff
AND MEGAUPLOAD LIMITED, a company duly

incorporated under the law of Hong Kong SAR
and having its registered office at 11/F AXA
Centre, 151 Gloucester Road, Wanchai, Hong
Kong
Second plaintiff
AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (ON BEHALF OF

THE CROWN IN RIGHT OF NEW ZEALAND),
Crown Law Office, Level 3, Justice Centre, 19
Aitken Street, Wellington
First defendant
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, Crown Law Office,

Level 3, Justice Centre, 19 Aitken Street,
Wellington
Second defendant
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
DATED 22 DECEMBER 2017
SOLICITOR ACTING: COUNSEL: COUNSEL:

P C Creagh R M Mansfield S L Cogan
Anderson Creagh Lai 22 Lorne Chambers Quay Chambers
110 Customs Street West 22 Lorne Street Level 7, 2 Commerce Street
Auckland 1010 PO Box 2674 Auckland 1010
PO Box 106 740 Shortland Street PO Box 106215
Auckland 1143 Auckland 1140 Auckland 1143
Telephone: (09) 306 5893 Telephone: (09) 377 5070
Facsimile: (09) 300 3197 Tel: (09) 304 1627 Facsimile: (09) 377 5071
Email:phil.creagh@acllaw.co.nz Email: ron@22lorne.co.nz Email: simon@quaychambers.co.nz
CROWN LAW OFFICE) , Crown Law Office,
Wellington
Third defendant
AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Fourth defendant

NEW ZEALAND POLICE), Crown Law Office,
Wellington
Fifth defendant
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
1
THE PLAINTIFFS BY THEIR SOLICITOR SAY:
PARTIES
1. The first plaintiff is Kim Dotcom, businessman, of Auckland.

Amongst other proceedings, the first plaintiff is a respondent in
the extradition proceeding commenced by the United States of
America (United States) in the District Court at North Shore
(District Court) under file number CRI-2012-092-1647 and
currently on appeal to the Court of Appeal (Extradition
Proceeding).
2. The second plaintiff is Megaupload Limited, a company founded

by the first plaintiff and duly incorporated under the laws of Hong
Kong, which, until 20 January 2012, carried on business as an
internet service provider, in particular of cloud storage services.
3. The first plaintiff is the beneficial owner of 100 per cent of the
shares in Vestor Limited, a Hong Kong registered company.
Vestor owns 34,001 out of 50,000 shares (approximately 68 per
cent) of the shares in the second plaintiff.
4. The first defendant is named for and on behalf of the Crown in

right of New Zealand, which is the requested state in the
Extradition Proceeding and a party to the Treaty on Extradition
between New Zealand and the United States (US-NZ Treaty).
5. The second defendant is named in these proceedings in his

capacity as chief law officer of New Zealand, central authority
under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992
(MACMA) and in his capacity as the party alleged to be
responsible for advancing the Extradition Proceeding through the
New Zealand judicial system and performing New Zealand’s
obligations under the US-NZ Treaty.
6. The third defendant is named for and on behalf of the Crown Law
Office (Crown Law) as the central authority under the Extradition
Act 1999, and counsel for the United States in the Extradition
Proceeding and other proceedings.
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
2
7. The fourth defendant is the United States of America, the

requesting state in the Extradition Proceeding and a party to the
US-NZ Treaty.
8. The fifth defendant is named in these proceedings for and on

behalf of the New Zealand Police (Police), which assisted the
United States with the application for and execution of the arrest
warrant in respect of the first plaintiff at issue in this proceeding.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United States’ investigation into Megaupload
9. At all material times, the United States has been seeking, or

intending to seek, the extradition of the first plaintiff from New
Zealand to the United States to face trial on criminal charges.
10. In or about March 2010, the United States Federal Bureau of

Investigation (FBI) and the United States Department of Justice
(DOJ) commenced an investigation into Megaupload.
11. The investigation was triggered by a complaint lodged by the

Motion Picture Association of America, the members of which
include the following Hollywood studios:
(a) Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation;
(b) Paramount Pictures Corporation;
(c) Sony Pictures Entertainment;
(d) Universal Studios Productions LLP;
(e) Walt Disney Studios; and
(f) Warner Bros. Entertainment (together Studios).
12. In April 2014, the Studios commenced civil proceedings in the

United States against the first and second plaintiffs (amongst
others) seeking damages for over USD$100 million for alleged
copyright infringement based on substantially the same
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
3
allegations as are at issue in the Extradition Proceeding (US Civil

Proceeding).
New Zealand’s interactions with the Studios and the United

States
13. Since not later than March 2010, New Zealand, the United States,
and the Studios (and associated persons and entities) have
discussed and sought to co-operate in their mutual best interests
on matters including (but not limited to):
(a) film productions and related commercial and legislative

incentives to attract such productions to New Zealand;
(b) copyright infringement; and
(c) the plaintiffs.
14. In or around February 2010, the first plaintiff, via an immigration

consultancy, Malcolm Pacific, expressed an interest in migrating
to New Zealand.
15. On or about 10 March 2010, the then Minister of Justice, the

Honourable Simon Power, met with:
(a) Michael Ellis of the Motion Picture Association of Asia, a

former law enforcement officer and extradition expert; and
(b) Tony Eaton of the New Zealand Federation Against

Copyright Theft.
16. Also in March 2010, the Studios lodged a formal complaint with
the DOJ in respect of the second plaintiff.
17. In or about October 2010, the FBI contacted the New Zealand
Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS) to seek its assistance with
the FBI’s investigation into the first and second plaintiffs, amongst
others.
18. On or about 26 and 27 October 2010, the Prime Minister and

other senior ministers (including the Minister for Arts, Culture and
Heritage) met with a Hollywood delegation, led by Mr Kevin
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
4
Tsujihara, then President of Warner Bros Home Entertainment.

Following this meeting:
(a) The Prime Minister agreed to give the content industry

significant tax incentives to ensure the filming of The
Hobbit trilogy would take place in New Zealand.
(b) The employment law of New Zealand was changed at the

behest and to the advantage of the content industry.
19. The Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage was at all relevant
times the Hon Christopher Finlayson, who was also the Attorney-
General at all relevant times.
First plaintiff’s immigration to New Zealand
20. Immigration New Zealand (INZ) processed and approved the first
plaintiff's residence application on or about 1 November 2010
following "political pressure".
21. An internal NZSIS email dated 22 October 2010 states:
INZ [blank] has phoned me to advise that the

INZ CEO (Nigel BICKLE) is questioning why
this case is on hold. Apparently there is
some 'political pressure' to process this case.
22. Residence was granted to the first plaintiff despite:
(a) His known and disclosed criminal convictions.
(b) The fact that he was known to be the subject of an active

and ongoing FBI investigation.
23. On or about 13 October 2010, the NZSIS put the first plaintiff’s
application for residence on hold following being alerted to the FBI
investigation.
24. On or about 14 October 2010, the NZSIS wrote to the Police

informing them of the FBI’s interest in the first plaintiff.
25. On or about 22 October 2010, NZSIS confirmed that the first

plaintiff was not a security concern.
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
5
26. As pleaded above, on or about 26-27 October 2010, the Prime

Minister met with senior members of the content industry.
27. The NZSIS removed its objection to the first plaintiff being granted
residence on or around 28 October 2010:
(a) On or around 29 October 2010, INZ official Chris Biggs

noted:
Advice has been received that the

FBI has an interest in pursuing an
investigation into the applicant
[Dotcom] because of his ownership
of the company Megaupload Ltd. It
would appear that interest relates to
the alleged provision of pirated
digital content by Megaupload Ltd.
(b) Mr Biggs further noted that there was no indication of

actual charges, and then determined:
It is therefore my opinion that the

policy relating to the deferral of an
application does not apply in this
case as there is no evidence to
indicate that the applicant falls within
any of the deferring provisions of the
policy.
(c) On or about 29 October 2010, Mr Biggs signed a Special

Direction in relation to the first plaintiff's application. This
Special Direction is required under section 7(1)(b) of the
Immigration Act 1987 (then in force) due to the first
plaintiff's criminal conviction history. However, the Special
Direction notes:
... we have no evidence to indicate

that any law enforcement agency
currently has an investigation
underway into the applicant
[Dotcom] or his business.
28. On or about 1 November 2010, the first plaintiff was granted

residence.
29. Despite having been granted residence, and the Overseas

Investment Office having approved his application to buy
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
6
approximately 45 hectares of land, the relevant ministers declined

the application.
New Zealand assistance with United States’ investigation into

the plaintiffs
30. On or about 14 October 2010, the NZSIS sent a letter to the

Police advising of the FBI's desire for a joint investigation into the
first plaintiff.
31. During 2011, Police and the FBI liaised on an ongoing basis in
respect of the FBI's investigation into the first plaintiff.
32. New Zealand’s involvement was part of a global operation co-

ordinated by the United States which was intended to culminate in
the simultaneous execution in multiple jurisdictions (including New
Zealand and Hong Kong) of arrest warrants, search warrants,
and/or restraining orders with a view to extraditing the first plaintiff
(amongst others) to the United States to face criminal charges.
33. On or about 31 January 2011, the FBI provided to Police an

intelligence memorandum regarding the first and second plaintiffs,
amongst others.
34. Police viewed PowerPoint presentations prepared by the FBI on

or about:
(a) 22 March 2011;
(b) 19 April 2011; and
(c) 21 June 2011.
35. A teleconference took place between Special Agent Poston of the

FBI, Detective Inspector G S Cramer (of Waitematā Police
District) and Detective Inspector J Ferguson (of the Organised
and Financial Crime Agency of New Zealand (OFCANZ)) on 21
April 2011.
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
7
36. On or about 21 April 2011, Detective Inspector Ferguson

prepared a report in which he identified that the FBI had
specifically asked for, amongst other matters:
Assistance with extradition, initial

explanation and assessment
whether the USA offending would
meet the thresholds for New Zealand
law and later actual assistance in
conducting the process.
37. On or about 29 April 2011, Detective Inspector Cramer prepared a

report on the request by the FBI for assistance (Cramer report),
in which he noted:
(a) that the FBI had requested assistance with ascertaining

whether certain United States offences would be
extraditable offences in respect of New Zealand;
(b) the FBI's intention to terminate its operation whilst all

persons of interest were in New Zealand, likely to be on or
around the first plaintiff's birthday on 21 January 2012;
(c) various other matters for which the FBI requested Police
assistance, including information as to property and
financial records.
(d) that the potential benefits to Police from assisting the FBI
included:
(i) Police being seen on the world stage as contributing

to the battle against international crime;
(ii) sending a clear message to international criminals

that New Zealand is not a soft touch or haven for
co-ordinating trans-national crime; and
(iii) development of capacity and capability in the area

of cyber crime.
38. OFCANZ reported to Assistant Commissioner of Police, Malcolm

Burgess, (Assistant Commissioner) in a memorandum dated 29
April 2011. In that memorandum, OFCANZ noted:
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
8
(a) that the first plaintiff held New Zealand residency;
(b) the FBI was in a position to terminate its operation, and

viewed January 2012 as the ideal time to do so; and
(c) that the FBI investigation was ongoing, and the FBI
requested Police assistance.
39. The Assistant Commissioner was also provided a copy of the

Cramer report.
40. On 7 July 2011, the Assistant Commissioner wrote to the FBI

regarding, among other things, the next steps to be taken by
Police to assist the FBI with its intention to take law enforcement
action in New Zealand against the first plaintiff and his business
associates in January 2012, in concert with New Zealand
authorities.
41. In a letter dated 31 August 2011, the FBI formally requested:
(a) Police's involvement in a joint case investigation between

the FBI and Police into the New Zealand activities of the
plaintiffs; and
(b) a co-ordination meeting with Police in New Zealand in late

October or early November 2011 in order to prepare an
investigative and operation plan for the anticipated formal
charges being brought against those the United States
sought to extradite and others.
42. In or about September 2011 OFCANZ set up Task Force Debut

(Operation Debut), led by Detective Inspector Grant Wormald, to
assist in the arrest and investigation of the first plaintiff (amongst
others associated with the second plaintiff) in New Zealand.
43. Operation Debut was established and undertaken by Police for

the benefit of the United States.
44. In or about September 2011, for the purposes of Operation Debut,

Sergeant Nigel McMorran of OFCANZ conducted various
background checks as to the whereabouts of those individuals the
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
9
United States sought to extradite and the nature of their

connection with New Zealand, including residency, property
ownership, vehicle registration and travel records.
45. On or about 16 September 2011, prior to any formal request by

the United States for assistance from New Zealand, the then
manager of the New Zealand Customs Service’s Integrated
Targeting Operations Centre email Immigration New Zealand
intelligence staff as follows:
During email discussions over night with our

Washington DC CLO around another target
– he stated that the FBI would be interested
in anything we have on Kim DOTCOM so
any information we can proactively feed to
them on him will buy you many brownie
points.
46. On or about 21 September 2011, a meeting regarding Operation

Debut took place in New Zealand between representatives of
some or all of the FBI, OFCANZ, Crown Law, and other New
Zealand government agencies.
47. On or about 27 October 2011, a meeting regarding Operation

Debut took place at Crown Law between representatives of some
or all of the FBI, OFCANZ, Crown Law, and other New Zealand
government agencies.
48. On or about 31 October 2011, a meeting regarding Operation

Debut took place in New Zealand. The Assistant Commissioner,
who was also the head of OFCANZ, chaired the meeting. Also
present were Detective Inspector Wormald, Detective Sergeant
McMorran, Mr Fergus Sinclair of Crown Law, Mr Jay Prabhu
(United States Prosecutor) and at least three FBI officers.
49. The agenda at the 31 October 2011 meeting included:
EXTRADITION TOPICS
 FBI: Anticipated actions and aims
 Timing required/available to
accomplish by 21st January 2012
 Number of subjects to be extradited
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
10
 Logistics of removing 9 persons from

NZ to America under extradition
 Request from FBI to Justice Dept
 Draft/Final version availability for

Crown Law
Administrative procedures
NZ Procedures/lessons learnt/pit falls
Staff required/available
Long term involvement by NZ

Crown/Police/OFCANZ
OTHER IDENTIFIED ISSUES
 The Way Forward:
 Priorities
 Deadlines and obstacles

(Statutory holidays, court
availability)
 FBI requirements
 Crown law requirements
 NZ Police requirements
50. On or about 4 November 2011, a meeting regarding Operation

Debut took place in New Zealand between representatives of the
FBI, OFCANZ, Crown Law, and other New Zealand government
agencies.
51. On or about 10 November 2011, a meeting regarding Operation

Debut took place in New Zealand between representatives of the
FBI, OFCANZ, Crown Law, and other New Zealand government
agencies.
52. On or about 15 November 2011, a telephone conference

regarding Operation Debut took place between Police, Crown Law
and the FBI during which the United States' progress in obtaining
indictments and producing a formal request for mutual legal
assistance was discussed, amongst other matters.
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
11
53. A further teleconference regarding Operation Debut took place on

or about 7 December 2011, between Police, Crown Law and the
FBI.
UNITED STATES’ APPLICATION FOR PROVISIONAL ARREST

WARRANT
Indictment
54. On 5 January 2012, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia issued an indictment dated 5 January
2012 (Indictment) charging the plaintiffs (amongst others) with:
(a) Count 1: Conspiracy to commit racketeering;
(b) Count 2: Conspiracy to commit copyright infringement;
(c) Count 3: Conspiracy to commit money laundering;
(d) Count 4: Criminal copyright infringement; and
(e) Count 5: Criminal Copyright Amendment and Aiding and

abetting criminal copyright infringement.
55. The Indictment alleged that:
(a) for the purposes of count one (racketeering), the activities

of the enterprise were criminal copyright infringement and
money laundering; and
(b) for the purposes count three (money laundering), the

unlawful activity from which the property involved in the
transactions was derived was criminal copyright
infringement.
56. On 5 January 2012, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia issued an arrest warrant for the first
plaintiff on charges contained in the Indictment (US Arrest
Warrant).
57. On 13 January 2012, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade

received a diplomatic note from the United States’ embassy
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
12
requesting the provisional arrest of the first plaintiff for the

purposes of extradition.
Provisional arrest warrant
58. Article 11 of the US-NZ Treaty relevantly provides:
Article XI
In case of urgency a Contracting Party may

apply for the provisional arrest of the person
sought pending the presentation of the
request for extradition through the diplomatic
channel. The application shall contain a
description of the person sought, an
indication of intention to request the
extradition of the person sought and a
statement of the existence of a warrant of
arrest or a judgment of conviction against
that person, and such further information, if
any, as would be necessary to justify the
issue of a warrant of arrest had the offence
been committed, or the person sought been
convicted, in the territory of the requested
Party.
59. Section 20 of the Extradition Act 1999 provided:
20 Provisional arrest warrant may be

issued
(1) A District Court Judge may issue a

provisional warrant in the prescribed form for
the arrest of a person if the Judge is satisfied
on the basis of the information presented to
him or her that—
(a) a warrant for the arrest of a

person has been issued in an
extradition country by a court or a
Judge or other person having
authority under the law of the
extradition country to issue it; and
(b) the person is, or is suspected of

being, in New Zealand or on his or
her way to New Zealand; and
(c) there are reasonable grounds to

believe that the person is an
extraditable person in relation to the
extradition country and the offence
for which the person is sought is an
extradition offence; and
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
13
(d) it is necessary or desirable for an

arrest warrant to be issued urgently.
(2) A warrant may be issued under this

section even though no request for surrender
has been made.
60. Pursuant to s 101B of the Extradition Act 1999, s 131 of the

Copyright Act 1994 is deemed to be included in the US-NZ
Treaty.
Arrest Warrant Application
61. On 17 January 2012, by its counsel, Crown Law, the United

States filed at the District Court a without notice application for a
provisional arrest warrant for the arrest of the first plaintiff under s
20 of the Extradition Act 1999 (Arrest Warrant Application).
62. In the context of a without notice Arrest Warrant (an ex parte

application), each of:
(a) the United States;
(b) the Police; and
(c) Crown Law;
owed a duty of candour to the Extradition Court, including a duty

to make full disclosure of all matters that could reasonably affect
the exercise the discretion of the Court in relation to the merits of
the application.
63. The Arrest Warrant Application relevantly stated:
(c) There are reasonable grounds to believe that the said

KIM DOTCOM [and others] are extraditable persons in
relation to the extradition country and the offences for
which they are sought are extradition offences; …
The first plaintiff rely on the Arrest Warrant Application as if

pleaded in full.
64. The Arrest Warrant Application was supported by:
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
14
(a) an affidavit sworn by Detective Sergeant McMorran on 18

January 2012 (First McMorran Affidavit); and
(b) a memorandum of counsel in support of the Arrest Warrant

Application dated 18 January 2012 (Arrest Warrant
Memorandum).
65. No other documents were before the District Court in support of

the Arrest Warrant Application besides the Arrest Warrant
Application itself, the First McMorran Affidavit and the Arrest
Warrant Memorandum (together Arrest Warrant Documents).
66. The First McMorran Affidavit did not set out any basis for the
allegation that the offences for which the first plaintiff was sought
in the United States were extradition offences.
67. The predicate offence relied upon by the United States for the
offences in the Indictment was criminal copyright infringement.
68. The Arrest Warrant Memorandum stated:
34. The US copyright charges have a

New Zealand equivalent in section 131 of the
Copyright Act 1994 – dealing with infringing
objects – which has a maximum penalty of
five years’ imprisonment. This offence is
deemed to be an extradition offence
punishable in both countries by more than
four years’ imprisonment, and the offence is
alleged to involve an organised criminal
group as defined in article 2(a) of the TOC
convention.
(emphasis added)
The first plaintiff relies on the Arrest Warrant Memorandum as if

pleaded in full.
69. Under s 20(1)(c) of the Extradition Act 1999 the District Court
Judge was required to be satisfied that (amongst other criteria)
there were reasonable grounds to believe that the offence for
which the first plaintiff was sought was an extradition offence.
70. None of the Arrest Warrant Documents:
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
15
(a) identified the offence under section 131 of the Copyright

Act 1994 that was alleged to be the New Zealand
equivalent of the United States copyright offences;
(b) addressed whether files were objects for the purposes of

section 131 of the Copyright Act 1994; or
(c) referred to any cases decided under section 131 of the

Copyright Act 1994.
71. On 18 January 2012, the District Court issued a provisional arrest

warrant in respect of the first plaintiff (Arrest Warrant). The
Arrest Warrant relevantly stated:
(a) Kim DOTCOM is accused of the following offences

related to criminal copyright and money laundering:
Count One: Conspiracy to commit racketeering, in violation

of Title 18, United States Code, section 1962(d), which
carries a maximum penalty of twenty years of
imprisonment.
Count Two: Conspiracy to commit copyright infringement,

in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371,
which carries a maximum penalty of five years of
imprisonment.
Count Three: Conspiracy to commit money laundering, in

violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(h),
which carries a maximum penalty of twenty years of
imprisonment.
Count Four: Criminal copyright infringement by distributing

a work on a computer network, and aiding and abetting of
criminal copyright infringement, in violation of Title 18,
United States Code, Sections 2 and 2319, and Title 17,
United States Code, Section 506, which carries a
maximum penalty of five years of imprisonment.
Count Five: Criminal copyright infringement by electronic

means, and aiding and abetting of criminal copyright
infringement, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,
Sections 2 and 2319, and Title 17, United States Code,
Section 506, which carries a maximum penalty of five
years of imprisonment.
I am satisfied that –
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
16
(c) There are reasonable grounds to believe that –
(ii) The offences for which Kim DOTCOM is sought are

extradition offences within the meaning of section 4 of the
Extradition Act 1999;
The first plaintiff relies on the Arrest Warrant as if pleaded in full.
72. The Arrest Warrant did not identify any offence, whether under
section 131 of the Copyright Act 1994 or otherwise, that was
alleged to be the New Zealand equivalent of the United States
copyright offences.
73. On 20 January 2012, Police entered onto the first plaintiff’s

residences at Mahoenui Valley Property and 5H The Prom in
order to execute the Arrest Warrant, amongst others.
74. During their presence on the Mahoenui Valley Property, Police

purported to arrest the first plaintiff pursuant to the Arrest Warrant.
75. On 20 January 2012, while the first plaintiff was in custody and
unable to respond, the Police issued three press releases
regarding the execution of the Arrest Warrants.
76. The press releases were misleading and intended to, and did,
create a narrative that cast the plaintiffs in an unfavourable light,
and the United States and Police in a favourable light, in the eyes
of the public, not only in New Zealand but also internationally.
77. The first plaintiff was then detained in a remand facility until 22
February 2012.
78. On 22 February 2012, the District Court ordered that the first
plaintiff be remanded on bail subject to a range of conditions.
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
17
ARREST WARRANT INVALID
Ortmann v United States of America [2017] NZHC 189
79. In Ortmann v United States of America (DC North Shore CRI-

2012-092-1647), the District Court held that the first plaintiff was
eligible for surrender to the United States, including on the basis
of material contained in the supplemental record of case that had
been obtained from the devices seized pursuant to the Search
Warrant.
80. In Ortmann v United States of America [2017] NZHC 189, on

appeal and judicial review from the decision of the District Court,
the High Court held that the first plaintiff was eligible for surrender
to the United States.
81. On appeal, in Ortmann v United States of America [2017] NZHC

189, the High Court made the following findings in respect of the
counts in the 5 January 2012 indictment:
(a) Count 1 (racketeering) and count three (money laundering)

depend on the predicate offending of criminal copyright
infringement (paragraph [56]).
(b) Count 1 (racketeering) is an umbrella charge alleging a

criminal enterprise formed for the purpose of committing
criminal copyright infringement (covered by counts 2 and 4
to 8) and money laundering (count 3) (paragraph [56]).
(c) The conduct alleged in count 2 would not, if carried out in

New Zealand, amount to an offence under section 131 of
the Copyright Act 1994 (paragraph [192]).
(d) Counts 4 and 5 relate to specific instances of alleged

copyright infringement (paragraphs [195] and [200]).
(e) The conduct alleged in counts 4 and 5 would not, if carried

out in New Zealand, amount to an offence under section
131 of the Copyright Act 1994 (paragraphs [196] and
[201]).
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
18
Material non-disclosure by and/or on behalf of United States

in arrest warrant application
82. Article IX of the US-NZ Treaty provides:
Article IX
The determination that extradition based

upon the request therefor should or should
not be granted shall be made in accordance
with the laws of the requested Party and the
person whose extradition is sought shall
have the right to use such remedies and
recourses as are provided by such law.
83. As pleaded at paragraph 61 hereof, the Arrest Warrant

Application was made without notice.
84. In addition, as the requesting state in the Extradition Proceeding,

was under a separate duty of candour.
85. Crown Law was acting on behalf of the United States in a

solicitor-client relationship and as central authority under the
Extradition Act.1
86. The Police were acting on behalf of the United States in

preparing, seeking and executing the Arrest Warrant.
87. Accordingly, in making and pursuing the Arrest Warrant

Application, each of the United States, the Attorney-General,
Crown Law and the Police owed an ongoing duty of candour to
the District Court to disclose any evidence that would render
worthless, undermine or seriously detract from the evidence upon
which they relied.
88. Each of the Attorney-General, Crown Law and the Police owed an
ongoing correlative duty to the extradition court to use their best
endeavours to ensure that the United States complied with its
duty of candour.
1
Dotcom v United States of America [2014] 1 NZLR 355, at [101].
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
19
89. In the context of the Arrest Warrant Application, the duty of

candour required the United States, the Attorney-General, Crown
Law and the Police to disclose to the District Court:
(a) All facts that could reasonably have been regarded as

relevant to the District Court in determining the Arrest
Warrant Application, including (without limitation) any
information relevant to whether the District Court Judge
could be satisfied that there were reasonable grounds to
believe:
(i) the US Arrest Warrant had been validly issued; and
(ii) the offence for which the first plaintiff was sought
was an extradition offence under the Extradition Act
1999.
(b) Any defence that might have been available to the first
plaintiff.
90. This duty applied not only at the time the Arrest Warrant
Application was made and heard but also continued to apply after
the Arrest Warrant was issued.
91. In making the Arrest Warrant Application, the United States, the
Attorney-General, Crown Law and the Police:
(a) Were recklessly indifferent as to whether there was any

reasonable basis on which to believe that the offences for
which the first plaintiff was sought were extradition
offences by virtue of s 131 of the Copyright Act 1994,
despite having had since 2010 to consider this issue.
(b) Failed, in breach of Article XI of the US-NZ Treaty and the

duty of candour, to disclose that there was no reasonable
basis on which to believe that the offences for which the
first plaintiff was sought were extradition offences by virtue
of s 131 of the Copyright Act 1994, including:
(i) at the relevant time, there had never been a case in

New Zealand in which online infringement of
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
20
copyright had been found to be an offence under s

131 of the Copyright Act 1994;
(ii) that s 92B of the Copyright Act 1994 provides

internet service providers with a “safe harbour” from
criminal liability for the conduct of their users in
certain circumstances; and
(iii) that, if criminal copyright infringement was not an

extradition offence, none of the other offences in the
US Arrest Warrant (i.e. racketeering and money
laundering) were extradition offences because they
depended on the predicate offence of criminal
copyright infringement.
92. The information pleaded at paragraph 90 was:
(a) information relevant to the role of the District Court under s

20 of the Extradition Act and should have been disclosed
to the District Court; but
(b) was not disclosed by any of the United States, the

Attorney-General, Crown Law and the Police.
93. The Arrest Warrant was therefore issued on the basis of material
non-disclosure by Crown Law.
94. As a result of the material non-disclosure, the process by which

the District Court and High Court found the first plaintiff eligible for
surrender was in breach of Article IX of the US-NZ Treaty
because:
(a) the process by which the first plaintiff was brought before
the extradition court, and the resulting Extradition
Proceeding, was not in accordance with New Zealand law;
and
(b) as a result, the first plaintiff was deprived of his right under
section 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 to a
fair hearing of the Arrest Warrant Application in light of all
relevant facts.
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
21
95. Accordingly, the Arrest Warrant, and all steps taken pursuant to it,
are therefore unlawful and invalid.
No reasonable grounds on which to believe offences for

which plaintiff was sought were extradition offences
96. The Arrest Warrant was invalid because there were no

reasonable grounds on which the District Court could have been
satisfied for the purposes of s 20(1)(c) of the Extradition Act 1999
that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the offence for
which the first plaintiff was sought was an extradition offence.
97. At the time the Arrest Warrant Application was made:
(a) The warrant on which the United States relied for the
purposes of s 20(1)(a) of the Extradition Act 1999 was the
US Arrest Warrant.
(b) The offences for which the first plaintiff was sought, and on
which the United States relied for the purposes of s
20(1)(c) of the Extradition Act 1999, were those in the
Indictment.
(c) The Superseding Indictment had not been issued.
(d) The Superseding US Arrest Warrant had not been issued.
Count two – conspiracy to commit copyright infringement is not an

extradition offence
98. For the purposes of s 20(1)(c) of the Extradition Act 1999, the
Arrest Warrant Memorandum alleged that the conduct alleged to
comprise the predicate offence of criminal copyright infringement
under count two would, had it occurred in New Zealand, amount
to an offence under s 131 of the Copyright Act 1994.
99. In Ortmann v United States of America [2017] NZHC 189, the

High Court held that:
[192] I conclude, in respectful disagreement with

the District Court, that the conduct alleged in count
2 is not an offence against s 131(1)(c), (d)(ii) or (iii)
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
22
of the Copyright Act. For the reasons given, I

consider that these offences, which all relate to “an
object”, do not apply to online infringement as is
alleged here. It follows that s 131 of the Copyright
Act does not provide an available extradition
pathway.
100. None of the Arrest Warrant Application, Arrest Warrant

Memorandum or the First McMorran Affidavit alleged that such
conduct would amount to any other offence under New Zealand
law besides s131 of the Copyright Act 1994.
101. Accordingly, on the information before the District Court at the

relevant time, there were no reasonable grounds on which to
believe for the purposes of s 20(1)(c) of the Extradition Act 1999
that the offence for which the first plaintiff was sought under count
two was an extradition offence.
Count four – Criminal copyright infringement by distributing a work

on a computer network is not an extradition offence
comprise the criminal copyright infringement under count four
would, had it occurred in New Zealand, amount to an offence
under s 131 of the Copyright Act 1994.

High Court held that, for the same reasons as in relation to count
two, the alleged copyright infringement under count four would
not, had it occurred in New Zealand, amount to an offence under
s 131 of the Copyright Act 1994 (paragraph [196]).

Memorandum or the First McMorran Affidavit alleged that the
conduct under count four would amount to any other offence
under New Zealand law besides s 131 of the Copyright Act 1994.

DOT1.001_853.DOCX
23
four was an extradition offence.
Count five – Criminal copyright infringement by electronic means

is not a copyright offence
comprise the criminal copyright infringement under count five
would, had it occurred in New Zealand, amount to an offence

High Court held that, for the same reasons as in relation to count
two, the alleged copyright infringement under count five would
not, had it occurred in New Zealand, amount to an offence under
s 131 of the Copyright Act 1994 (paragraph [201]).

Memorandum or the First McMorran Affidavit alleged that such
conduct would amount to any other offence under New Zealand
law besides s 131 of the Copyright Act 1994.

five was an extradition offence.
Count one – Conspiracy to commit racketeering is not an

extradition offence
comprise the racketeering offence under count one would, had it
occurred in New Zealand, amount to an offence under s 98A of
the Crimes Act 1961 (paragraph 33).
111. Section 98A(2) of the Crimes Act 1961 provided:
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
24
98A Participation in organised criminal group
(1) Every person commits an offence and is liable to

imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years who
participates in an organised criminal group—
(a) knowing that 3 or more people share any 1 or

more of the objectives (the particular objective or
particular objectives) described in paragraphs (a)
to (d) of subsection (2) (whether or not the person
himself or herself shares the particular objective or
particular objectives); and
(b) either knowing that his or her conduct

contributes, or being reckless as to whether his or
her conduct may contribute, to the occurrence of
any criminal activity; and
(c) either knowing that the criminal activity

contributes, or being reckless as to whether the
criminal activity may contribute, to achieving the
particular objective or particular objectives of the
organised criminal group.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, a group is an organised

criminal group if it is a group of 3 or more people who
have as their objective or one of their objectives—
(a) obtaining material benefits from the

commission of offences that are punishable by
imprisonment for a term of 4 years or more; or
(b) obtaining material benefits from conduct

outside New Zealand that, if it occurred in New
Zealand, would constitute the commission of
offences that are punishable by imprisonment for a
term of 4 years or more; or
(c) the commission of serious violent offences

(within the meaning of section 312A(1)); or
(d) conduct outside New Zealand that, if it

occurred in New Zealand, would constitute the
commission of serious violent offences (within the
meaning of section 312A(1)).
(3) A group of people is capable of being an organised

criminal group for the purposes of this Act whether or
not—
(a) some of them are subordinates or employees of

others; or
(b) only some of the people involved in it at a particular

time are involved in the planning, arrangement, or
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
25
execution at that time of any particular action, activity,

or transaction; or
(c) its membership changes from time to time.

(a) racketeering (count one) depended on the predicate

offence of criminal copyright infringement (paragraph [56]);
and
(b) the alleged predicate offence did not amount to an offence


Memorandum or the First McMorran Affidavit alleged any other
predicate offence for the purposes of s 98A(2) of the Crimes Act
1961 besides s 131 of the Copyright Act 1994.
114. Accordingly, had the alleged conduct occurred in New Zealand,

there was no predicate offence under New Zealand law for the
purposes of s 98A of the Crimes Act 1961 alleged in the Arrest
Warrant Documents.

relevant time, there were no reasonable grounds to believe for the
purposes of s 20(1)(c) of the Extradition Act 1999 that the offence
for which the first plaintiff was sought under count one was an
extradition offence.
Count three – Conspiracy to commit money laundering is not an

extradition offence
comprise the money laundering offence under count three
amounted to an offence under:
(a) article II item 19 of the US-NZ Treaty (paragraph 33); and
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
26
(b) had it occurred in New Zealand, s 243 of the Crimes Act

1961.

(a) money laundering (count three) depended on the predicate

offence of criminal copyright infringement (paragraph [56]);
and
(b) the alleged predicate offence did not amount to an offence


Memorandum or First McMorran Affidavit alleged any other
predicate offence besides criminal copyright infringement.

relevant time, there were no reasonable grounds to believe for the
purposes of s 20(1)(c) of the Extradition Act 1999 that the offence
for which the first plaintiff was sought under count three was an
extradition offence because there was no predicate offence which
also amounted to an extradition offence.
120. As a result of the breaches pleaded at paragraphs 96 to 119

hereof, the Arrest Warrant was invalid.
No reasonable grounds on which to believe US Arrest

Warrant for the first plaintiff had been issued in the United
States
Superseding indictment
121. On 16 February 2012, apprehending that the United States

copyright infringement offences were not extradition offences by
virtue of s 131 of the Copyright Act 1994, the United States
procured the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia to issue a superseding indictment (Superseding
Indictment).
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
27
122. Under United States law, the effect of the Superseding Indictment
was to dismiss the Indictment.
123. The Superseding Indictment charged the first plaintiff (amongst

others) with:
(a) Count 1: Conspiracy to commit racketeering;
(b) Count 2: Conspiracy to commit copyright infringement;
(c) Count 3: Conspiracy to commit money laundering;
(d) Count 4: Criminal copyright infringement;
(e) Counts 5-8: Criminal copyright infringement by electronic

means and aiding and abetting criminal copyright
infringement;
(f) Counts 9-13: Fraud by wire and aiding and abetting fraud
by wire.
124. The Superseding Indictment differed from the Indictment in that

(without limitation):
(a) Counts 1-5 of the Superseding Indictment, and in particular

count 2 (conspiracy to commit copyright infringement),
were pleaded differently to counts 1-5 of the Indictment.
(b) Counts 6-13 were added.
(c) Additional “General Allegations” were pleaded.
125. On 16 February 2012, based on the Superseding Indictment, the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
issued a new arrest warrant in respect of the offences alleged
under counts 1-13 of the Superseding Indictment (Superseding
US Arrest Warrant).
Superseding US Arrest Warrant
126. The US Arrest Warrant on the basis of which the District Court
issued the Arrest Warrant was superseded and therefore ceased
to be of legal effect on 16 February 2012.
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
28
127. At no time subsequently has any arrest warrant under the

Extradition Act 1999 been sought or issued in respect of the first
plaintiff on the basis of the US Superseding Arrest Warrant.
128. Even if it was valid at the point it was issued (which is denied), the
Arrest Warrant pursuant to which the first plaintiff was brought
before the Extradition Court and the Extradition Proceeding was
commenced has been invalid at all times since 16 February 2012.
129. Despite this, none of the United States, Attorney-General, Crown

Law or the Police disclosed to the first plaintiff or the District Court
that, under United States law, the effect of the Superseding
Indictment was to render invalid the Indictment and the US Arrest
Warrant.
Request for surrender
130. On 27 February 2012, the United States purported to issue a

request for the surrender of the first plaintiff under s 18 of the
Extradition Act 1999 (Request for Surrender).
131. The Request for Surrender was expressly made on the basis of:
(a) the Superseding Indictment; and
(b) the Superseding US Arrest Warrant.
132. At the relevant time, s 23 of the Extradition Act 1999 provided:
23 Procedure following arrest
(4) If the person has been arrested on a

provisional arrest warrant issued
under section 20, the following provisions
apply:
(a) the hearing of the proceedings

must not proceed until the court
receives from the Minister a notice in
writing stating that a request for the
surrender of the person has been
transmitted to the Minister
under section 18:
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
29
(b) pending the receipt of the notice

from the Minister, the proceedings
may from time to time be adjourned:
(c) if the court does not receive the

notice—
(i) within the time prescribed

in an extradition treaty that is
in force between the
extradition country and New
Zealand; or
(ii) if no time is prescribed in

a treaty, or no treaty is in
force, within such reasonable
time as the court may fix,—
the court must discharge the person:
(d) the court may from time to time,

in its discretion, extend any time
fixed by it under paragraph (c)(ii).
133. At the relevant time, s 18 of the Extradition Act 1999 provided:
18 Request for surrender
(1) A request by an extradition country for

the surrender of a person who—
(a) is an extraditable person in

relation to that country; and
(b) is, or is suspected of being, in

New Zealand or on his or her way to
New Zealand,—
must be transmitted to the Minister of

Justice.
(2) The request must be made—
(a) by a diplomatic or consular

representative, or a Minister, of the
country that seeks the person's
surrender; or
(b) by such other means as is

prescribed in a treaty (if any) in force
between New Zealand and the
extradition country or in any
undertakings between New Zealand
and the extradition country.
(3) The request must be accompanied by

duly authenticated supporting documents.
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
30
(4) In this section, supporting documents,

in relation to an extradition offence,
means,—
(a) if the offence is an offence of

which the person is accused,—
(i) a warrant for the arrest of

the person for the offence
issued in the extradition
country by a court or a Judge
or other person having
authority under the law of the
extradition country to issue it;
or
(ii) a copy of such a warrant:
(emphasis added)
134. Under s 18 of the Extradition Act 1999 the arrest warrant to be

included in the supporting documents must be the same arrest
warrant as provided in support of the application for the arrest
warrant.
135. The US Request for Surrender was made on the basis of the
Superseding US Arrest Warrant.
136. The US Request for Surrender therefore did not comply with s 18
of the Extradition Act 1999 and was invalid.
Minister’s notice invalid
137. On 1 March 2012, the third defendant purported to issue a notice

under ss 18(1) and 23(4) of the Extradition Act 1999 (Minister’s
Notice).
138. The Minister’s Notice provided:
NOTICE UNDER SECTIONS 18(1) AND

23(4) OF THE EXTRADITION ACT 1999
Whereas
1 On 1 September 1999 the Extradition Act

1999 (the Act) came into force;
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
31
2 Part 3 of the Act applies to the UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA by virtue of it being
party to the Treaty on Extradition between
New Zealand and the United States of
America 1970 (the Treaty);
3 On 18 January 2012 the North Shore

District Court issued a provisional warrant for
the arrest of KIM DOTCOM pursuant to
section 20 of the Act and Article XI of the
Treaty;
4 On 1 March 2012 a formal request from the

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA for the
surrender of KIM DOTCOM was transmitted
to the Minister of Justice in accordance with
section 18 of the Act;
5 Section 23(4)(a) of the Act provides that

the hearing of the proceedings must not
proceed until the court receives from the
Minister of Justice a notice in writing stating
that a request for the surrender of the person
has been transmitted to the Minister under
section 18.
NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to section

18(1) and section 23(4) of the Extradition Act
1999,1 hereby notify the North Shore District
Court that a request for the surrender of KIM
DOTCOM to the UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA has been transmitted to me by
the authorities of the UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA in accordance with the provisions
of the Act.
139. The Request for Surrender was made, and the Minister’s Notice
under s 23(4) of the Extradition Act 1999, was given on the basis
of:
(a) the invalid Arrest Warrant; and/or
(b) contrary to the Extradition Act 1999, a different indictment

and different foreign arrest warrant from the arrest warrant
pursuant to which the first plaintiff was brought before the
Extradition Court.
140. The Minister’s Notice was therefore invalid for the purposes of s
23(4)(a) of the Extradition Act 1999 because it stated that a
request for surrender of the first plaintiff had been transmitted to
the third defendant under s 18 of the Extradition Act 1999 when,
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
32
in fact, the US Request for Surrender did not comply with s 18 of

the Extradition Act 1999.
141. At no time has the United States:
(a) sought an arrest warrant based on the Superseding

Indictment and/or the Superseding US Arrest Warrant;
and/or
(b) disclosed to the District Court that, under United States

law, the effect of the Superseding Indictment was to
dismiss the Indictment such that the Indictment was of no
legal effect.
142. No valid notice under s 23(4)(a) of Extradition Act 1999 has ever
been submitted.
143. Accordingly, pursuant to s 23(4)(a) of the Extradition Act 1999, the

Extradition Proceeding could not lawfully have proceeded and is
ultra vires and a nullity.
Failure to discharge first plaintiff in breach of US-NZ Treaty
144. Article XI of the US-NZ Treaty provides:
Article XI
In case of urgency a Contracting Party may

apply for the provisional arrest of the person
sought pending the presentation of the
request for extradition through the diplomatic
channel. The application shall contain a
description of the person sought, an
indication of intention to request the
extradition of the person sought and a
statement of the existence of a warrant of
arrest or a judgment of conviction against
that person, and such further information, if
any, as would be necessary to justify the
issue of a warrant of arrest had the offence
been committed, or the person sought been
convicted, in the territory of the requested
Party.
On receipt of such an application the

requested Party shall take the necessary
steps to secure the arrest of the person
claimed.
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
33
A person arrested upon such an application

shall be set at liberty upon the expiration of
45 days from the date of his arrest if a
request for his extradition accompanied by
the documents specified in Article X shall not
have been received. However, this
stipulation shall not prevent the institution of
proceedings with a view to extraditing the
person sought if the request is subsequently
received.
(emphasis added)
145. No valid request for surrender having been received from the
United States before the expiration of 45 days from the date of the
first plaintiff’s arrest, the first plaintiff should have been set at
liberty but was not.
146. In breach of Article XI of the US-NZ Treaty and the duty of

candour, the United States, the Attorney-General, Crown Law and
the Police failed to disclose that the United States’ extradition
request was based on a different indictment from the one on the
basis of which the Arrest Warrant had been issued.
147. As a result of this breach of the duty of candour, the first plaintiff
has not been set at liberty, and the Extradition Proceeding has
proceeded for approximately six years, and continues to proceed,
despite the fact that:
(a) no valid request for the first plaintiff’s extradition

accompanied by the documents specified in Article X of the
US-NZ Treaty had been received; and
(b) 45 days have passed from the date of the first plaintiff’s
arrest.
148. Accordingly, even if the Arrest Warrant was valid when issued
(which is denied), the Extradition Proceeding has been invalid and
ultra vires since the expiry of 45 days from 20 January 2017.
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
34
Defendants’ knew alleged conduct was not an offence under

s 131 of Copyright Act 1994
149. Despite being requested to do so by the first plaintiff, the United

States declined to advise the first plaintiff of the offences under
the US-NZ Treaty on the basis of which it asserted the United
States offences were extradition offences.
150. By minute dated 18 September 2013, the District Court ordered

that the United States provide such information to the first plaintiff
and his co-respondents.
151. By letter dated 31 October 2013, on behalf of the United States,

Meredith Connell advised counsel for the first plaintiff of the
offences on which it intended to rely.
152. The 31 October 2013 letter raised for the first time predicate
offences under the Crimes Act 1961.
153. Accordingly, by not later than 31 October 2013, the United States,
the Attorney-General, and Crown Law knew that the alleged
conduct would not constitute an offence under s 131 of the
Copyright Act 1994 had it been carried out in New Zealand.
154. On or about 19 December 2017, the former Solicitor-General, who

was the Solicitor-General at the time of the Arrest Warrant
Application, publicly acknowledged in relation to the Extradition
Proceeding that “we could have had better legal advice earlier on
in the piece”, which is understood to be a reference to Crown
Law, the Attorney-General and/or the United States.
RESTRAINING ORDERS
155. As part of the United States’ global, co-ordinated strategy for

prosecuting the plaintiffs, the United States sought restraining
orders over all of the plaintiffs’ assets worldwide.
156. All of the plaintiffs’ material assets worldwide have been

restrained on behalf of the United States since not later than 18
January 2012.
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
35
Foreign restraining orders
157. On 10 January 2012, on the application of the United States, the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
issued a post-indictment restraining order in respect of assets of
the plaintiffs (First Foreign Restraining Order).
158. The First Foreign Restraining Order purported to restrain all of the
plaintiffs’ material assets in New Zealand and Hong Kong.
159. On 25 January 2012, the United States District Court made or

purported to make a supplemental post-indictment restraining
order (Second Foreign Restraining Order).
160. The Second Foreign Restraining Order purported to restrain all of

the plaintiffs’ material assets in New Zealand and Hong Kong.
New Zealand restraining orders
161. On 13 January 2012, pursuant to the MACMA, the United States

requested assistance from the Attorney-General in relation to the
First Foreign Restraining Order.
162. On 17 January 2012, the Attorney-General authorised the

Commissioner to apply to register the First Foreign Restraining
Order in New Zealand.
163. On 17 January 2012, the Commissioner applied ex parte in CIV-

2012-404-33 Commissioner of Police v Dotcom & Ors to the High
Court at Auckland to register the First Foreign Restraining Order
(First Registration Application).
164. On 18 January 2012, the High Court made orders purportedly

granting the without notice registration of the First Foreign
Restraining Order.
165. On 25 January 2012, the United States Central Authority made a

further request under the MACMA to the Attorney-General for
assistance in relation to the Second Foreign Restraining Order.
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
36
166. On 30 January 2012, having concluded that the application on 17

January 2012 to register the First Foreign Restraining Order was
“procedurally premature”, the Commissioner applied without
notice for an interim foreign restraining order.
167. On 30 January 2012, the High Court granted the interim foreign
restraining order over the first plaintiff’s assets.
168. On 30 January 2012, the Attorney-General purported to authorise

the Commissioner to apply to register the Second Foreign
Restraining Order.
169. On 30 January 2012, the Commissioner applied to the High Court

at Auckland to register the First and Second Foreign Restraining
Orders (Second Registration Application).
170. On 16 March 2012, the High Court ordered the registration orders
made on 18 January 2012 were null and void and of no legal
effect.
171. On 20 March 2012, the Commissioner discontinued the Second

Application for Registration of the First and Second Foreign
Restraining Orders because the purported authorisation dated 30
January 2012 was invalid.
172. On 20 March 2012, the Commissioner made a third registration

application, for registration of the First and Second Foreign
Restraining Orders (Third Registration Application).
173. The Third Registration Application was made pursuant to a

purported authorisation dated 16 March 2012 by the Deputy
Solicitor-General, Cameron Mander, pursuant to a delegation
from the Attorney-General under sections 9A and 9C of the
Constitution Act 1986 (16 March 2012 Authorisation).
174. The 16 March 2012 Authorisation relevantly stated:
…in my opinion nothing in the Mutual Assistance in

Criminal Matters Act 1992 precludes the granting
of this request.
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
37
175. On 18 April 2012, the High Court granted the Third Registration
Application for registration of the First and Second Foreign
Restraining Orders.
176. On 21 March 2014, the Commissioner applied to the High Court

for an extension of the duration of the 18 April 2012 restraining
orders.
177. On 21 August 2014, the Court of Appeal granted the extension,

thereby extending the expiry of the 18 April 2012 restraining
orders until 18 April 2015.
178. Subject to variations ordered by the High Court, the first plaintiff’s
assets remained restrained under the 18 April 2012 restraining
orders until their expiry three years later on 18 April 2015.
179. From 18 April 2015, the first plaintiff’s New Zealand assets have
been frozen pursuant to freezing orders granted in favour of the
Studios under Part 32 of the High Court Rules in CIV-2014-404-
1272 Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation & Ors v Dotcom &
Ors.
Hong Kong restraint order
180. On a date unknown but prior to 17 January 2012, the United

States made a request for assistance from Hong Kong under
Hong Kong’s Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters
Ordinance (Cap. 525) (MLAO) (Hong Kong request).
181. Despite request by the plaintiffs’ solicitors, the Secretary for

Justice of Hong Kong has declined to provide a copy of the Hong
Kong request on grounds including that the United States
requested that it be kept confidential.
182. On 17 January 2012 (Hong Kong time) the Secretary for Justice
of Hong Kong filed an ex parte originating summons in the High
Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Court of
First Instance in HCMP 116/2012 seeking a restraint order over
the plaintiffs’ Hong Kong assets as set out in the draft order
exhibited to the affirmation of Yu Yat-Ming Sunny dated 17
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
38
January 2012 (Sunny affirmation) filed in support of the

summons (Restraint Order).
External confiscation order required
183. The application for the Restraint Order was made under s 27 of
the MLAO. Section 27 provides:
27. Requests to Hong Kong for

enforcement of external confiscation
order
(1) Where a place outside Hong Kong

requests the Secretary for Justice to make
arrangements—
(a) for the enforcement of an external

confiscation order; or
(b) where an external confiscation

order may be made in a proceeding
which has been or is to be instituted in
that place, to restrain dealing in any
property against which the order may
be enforced or which may be
available to satisfy the order,
then the Secretary for Justice may, in

relation to that request, act for that place
under the provisions of Schedule 2.
(2) A request under subsection (1) shall,

unless the contrary is shown, be deemed to
constitute the authority of the place outside
Hong Kong concerned for the Secretary for
Justice to act on its behalf in any
proceedings in the Court of First Instance
under section 28 or under any provision of
Schedule 2.
184. Schedule 2, s 7 of the MLAO provides:
7. Restraint orders
(1) The Court of First Instance may by order

(in this Schedule referred to as a restraint
order (限制令)) prohibit any person from
dealing with any realisable property, subject
to such conditions and exceptions as may be
specified in the order.
(2) A restraint order may apply to any

realisable property, including property
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
39
transferred to a person after the making of

the order.
(3) This section shall not have effect in

relation to any property for the time being
subject to a charge under section 8.
(4) A restraint order—
(a) may be made only on an

application by the Secretary for
Justice or, in a case where an
external confiscation order has been
registered under section 28 of this
Ordinance, by a receiver appointed
under section 9 or the Secretary for
Justice; (Amended L.N. 362 of 1997)
(b) may be made on an ex parte

application to a judge in chambers;
and
(c) may, notwithstanding anything in

Order 11 of the Rules of the High
Court (Cap. 4 sub. leg. A), provide
for service on, or the provision of
notice to, persons affected by the
order in such manner as the Court of
First Instance may direct.
185. Schedule 2, s 6 of the MLAO provides:
6. Cases in which restraint orders and

charging orders may be made
(1) The powers conferred on the Court of

First Instance by sections 7(1) and 8(1) are
exercisable where—
(a) proceedings have been instituted

in a place outside Hong Kong;
(b) the proceedings have not been

concluded; and
(c) either an external confiscation

order has been made in the
proceedings or it appears to the Court
of First Instance that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that
an external confiscation order may be
made in them.
(2) Those powers are also exercisable where

the Court of First Instance is satisfied that
proceedings are to be instituted in a place
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
40
outside Hong Kong and it appears to the

court that an external confiscation order may
be made in them.
(3) Where the Court of First Instance has

made an order under section 7(1) or 8(2) by
virtue of subsection (2), it shall discharge the
order if the proposed proceedings are not
instituted within such time as the Court of
First Instance considers reasonable.
186. Pursuant to s 2 of the MLAO:
“external confiscation order” (外地沒收令)

means an order, made under the law of a
place outside Hong Kong, for the purpose
of—
(a) recovering (including forfeiting and

confiscating)—
(i) payments or other rewards

received in connection with an
external serious offence or their
value;
(ii) property derived or realised,

directly or indirectly, from payments
or other rewards received in
connection with an external serious
offence or the value of such
property; or
(iii) property used or intended to be

used in connection with an external
serious offence or the value of such
property; or
(b) depriving a person of a pecuniary

advantage obtained in connection with an
external serious offence, and whether the
proceedings which gave rise to that order are
criminal or civil in nature, and whether those
proceedings are in the form of proceedings
against a person or property;
187. The “external confiscation order” contemplated in the Indictment

and Superseding Indictment was a post-conviction forfeiture
order.
188. Accordingly, the contemplated external confiscation order could

not be made unless the first plaintiff was convicted in the United
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
41
States. The first plaintiff could not be convicted in the United

States if he was not first arrested, then found eligible for
surrender, then in fact surrendered to the United States to face
trial.
Double criminality required
189. Section 5(1)(g) of the MLAO provides:
5. Refusal of assistance
(1) A request by a place outside Hong Kong

for assistance under this Ordinance shall be
refused if, in the opinion of the Secretary for
Justice—
(g) the request relates to an act or omission that, if

it had occurred in Hong Kong, would not have
constituted a Hong Kong offence.
190. Accordingly, before seeking the Restraint Order, the Secretary for
Justice was required to be reasonably of the opinion that the
conduct alleged to constitute the criminal offence would have
constituted a criminal offence if it had taken place within Hong
Kong.
191. The High Court of Hong Kong was required to be satisfied that
there were reasonable grounds for believing that an external
confiscation order may be made in the United States. A post-
conviction forfeiture order as contemplated by the Indictment and
Superseding Indictment could not be obtained without the first
plaintiff first being:
(a) arrested;
(b) surrendered to the United States; and
(c) convicted.
Duty of candour
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
42
192. The application having been made on an ex parte basis, the

Secretary for Justice was under a duty to disclose all material
information to the Court.
193. Information material to the Restraint Order application included

(without limitation):
(a) information relevant to the validity or otherwise of the

Arrest Warrant; and/or
(b) information as to the grounds for alleging double

criminality.
Restraint Order hearing
194. At 9:45 a.m. on 18 January 2012 (Hong Kong time), the Restraint
Order application was heard before the Honourable Mrs Justice V
Bokhary in chambers.
195. The Restraint Order application was expressly made pursuant to s

27 of the MLAO, and ss 6 and 7 of Schedule 2 to the same
ordinance.
196. The transcript of the hearing records the following exchange

between the court and counsel for the Secretary for Justice:
COURT: They've already -- anybody been

charged yet?
MS LAM: Yes, seven individuals and two

corporate entities as set out in paragraph 17
of the affirmation.
COURT: 17. So, has he been arrested

already, the first...
MS LAM: They are charged, and an

indictment has been filed in court under seal.
And, in fact, because this case involved
several jurisdictions. The targets are
expected to hold a birthday party in New
Zealand on 20 January, which is this Friday.
So...
COURT: That's where the 1st defendant is

now?
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
43
MS LAM: Correct, correct. Because about

$350 million of their assets are in Hong
Kong, and a few of their...
COURT: So, when -- you say that US

defendants and charges; they are charged
with the following offences.
MS LAM: Correct, by view of the filing of the

indictment.
COURT: They have not been arrested and

charged yet?
MS LAM: No. They have been charged but

not arrested.
COURT: They've been charged.
MS LAM: But not arrested. They've...
COURT: You mean a charge has been -- I

mean, they will be charged, or they haven't
been charged yet, have they?
MS LAM: The indictment is the US

terminology of "charge sheets".
COURT: Oh, I see.
MS LAM: Yes. Indictment is -- Hong Kong is

a charge.
COURT: Because there has -- you know, in

Hong Kong you say that they have been
charged, you know...
MS LAM: Correct, correct, we use "charge".
COURT: But they haven't been arrested yet.
MS LAM: They haven't been arrested. They

have been charged by the US court by the
filing of the indictment...
COURT: Yes.
MS LAM: ...in the United States District Court

for the Western District of Virginia. And, in
fact, the same court -- the indictment was...
COURT: So, they will be charged upon

arrest. You can't charge somebody before
they're arrested.
MS LAM: Right, right, yes.
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
44
COURT: You can prepare an indictment to

charge them?
MS LAM: Right, in that sense, yes. And in

fact, as set out at paragraph 19 of the
affirmation on 10 January, the same court
made a restraint order restraining their
assets, including their assets in Hong Kong.
The arrest action and the restraint action
need to go together at the same pace. They
can't be arrested -- we need to obtain the
restraint order today to tie in with the arrest
action to take place in New Zealand and
that's why we need to make the application
today.
COURT: All right.
The plaintiffs rely on the transcript as if pleaded in full.
197. The Restraint Order was granted by the High Court of Hong Kong
on the terms sought by the Secretary for Justice after a 13 minute
hearing.
198. In granting the Restraint Order, the High Court of Hong Kong
attached significant weight to the submission that, although the
first plaintiff had not yet been arrested, he soon would be.
199. The only evidence filed by the Secretary for Justice in support of
the Restraint Order application was the Sunny affirmation.
200. The only reference in the Sunny affirmation to the arrest of the
first plaintiff is at paragraph 30:
30. The request has further sought restraint

of an artwork and 3 expensive televisions
which are believed to be located at the 1st
Defendant’s residence at Suite number 3608
of Grand Hyatt Hong Kong, 1 Harbour Road,
Wanchai, Hong Kong. The items will be
seized by customs officers when they
execute a search warrant on the premises at
the same time as the arrests of the
defendants scheduled to take place in the
coming few days in New Zealand.
201. At the time the Sunny affirmation was made, the Arrest Warrant
had not been issued.
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
45
202. In determining the Restraint Orders Application, the High Court of

Hong Kong was unaware that:
(a) there were no reasonable grounds to believe that the

offence for which the first plaintiff was sought was an
extradition offence for the purposes of s 20(1)(c) of the
Extradition Act 1999; and
(b) accordingly, that there were no reasonable grounds for

believing that an external confiscation order may be made
in the United States.
203. The matters at paragraph 201 hereof constitute information

material to:
(a) the Secretary for Justice’s decision on whether or not to

grant the Hong Kong request; and/or
(b) The High Court of Hong Kong’s decision on the Restraint

Order application.
204. If the absence of any reasonable grounds to believe that the

offence for which the first plaintiff was sought was an extradition
offence had been disclosed to the Secretary for Justice, the
Secretary for Justice would have:
(a) had regard to s 5(1)(g) of the MLAO;
(b) concluded that the request related to an act or omission

that, if it had occurred in Hong Kong, would not have
constituted a Hong Kong offence; and
(c) been required under s 5(1)(g) of the MLAO to refuse to

assist the United States with the Restraint Order
application.
205. If the absence of any reasonable grounds to believe that the

offence for which the first plaintiff was sought was an extradition
offence had been disclosed to the United States and/or the
Secretary for Justice then, pursuant to their duty of candour as the
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
46
applicants in an ex parte application, they would have been

required to disclose, and would in fact have disclosed, this
information to the High Court of Hong Kong.
206. Had this information been disclosed to the Secretary for Justice
and/or the United States, there would have been no valid basis for
the opinion expressed at paragraph 32 of the Sunny affirmation
that:
32. In view of the information contained in

the preceding paragraphs, I believe that:
(c) there are reasonable grounds for

believing that an external confiscation order
may be made in the proceedings in respect
of property held by or under the control of the
Defendants, including but not limited to the
property subject to the proposed restraint
order; …
207. Had this information been disclosed to the High Court of Hong
Kong at or before the hearing on 18 January 2017, it would have
concluded that there were no reasonable grounds for believing
that an external confiscation order may be made in the United
States proceeding because there were no reasonable prospects
of the first plaintiff being arrested in New Zealand.
208. But for the non-disclosure of this information the High Court of
Hong Kong prior to issuing the Restraint Order, it would not have
granted the Restraint Order.
209. Had the invalidity of the Arrest Warrant and Extradition

Proceeding been disclosed to the High Court of Hong Kong after
the Restraint Order was granted, it would have rescinded the
Restraint Order.
Superseding indictment
210. The duty of candour to which the Secretary for Justice was
subject was an ongoing duty.
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
47
211. Accordingly, had the impact of the Superseding Indictment on the

Arrest Warrant been disclosed to them after the Restraint Order
had been granted, the Secretary for Justice and/or the United
States would have been required to disclose, and would in fact
have disclosed, to the High Court of Hong Kong that:
(a) there was no longer a foreign arrest warrant for the

purposes of s 20(1)(a) of the Extradition Act 1999;
(b) The Arrest Warrant was therefore no longer valid (if it ever
was); and
(c) there were therefore no longer reasonable grounds for

believing that an external confiscation order may be made
in the United States.
212. In these circumstances, the High Court of Hong Kong would have
discharged the Restraint Order.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION – ATTORNEY-GENERAL, CROWN

LAW AND POLICE – NEGLIGENCE (ARREST WARRANT)
The plaintiffs repeat paragraphs 1-212.
213. Each of the Attorney-General, Crown Law and the Police owed
the first plaintiff a duty of care in seeking and maintaining the
Arrest Warrant.
214. In breach of their respective duties, the Attorney-General, Crown

Law and the Police failed to exercise reasonable care by:
(a) Seeking the Arrest Warrant notwithstanding that they knew

or ought reasonably to have known that there was no
information on the basis on which a District Court Judge
could reasonably be satisfied that the offence for which the
first plaintiff was sought was an extradition offence.
(b) Failing to disclose to the District Court that there was no

information on the basis of which a District Court Judge
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
48
could reasonably be satisfied that the offence for which the

first plaintiff was sought was an extradition offence.
(c) Failing, on learning of the issuing of the Superseding

Indictment and consequent invalidity of the US Arrest
Warrant, to notify the District Court that there was no basis
on which a District Court Judge could reasonably be
satisfied that a warrant for the first plaintiff’s arrest had
been issued in the United States for the purposes of s
20(1)(c) of the Extradition Act 1999.
(d) Failing to discharge their duty to ensure that the United

States understood and discharged its duty of candour.
Loss suffered by plaintiffs
215. The plaintiffs have suffered loss as a result of the Arrest Warrant
being unlawfully issued.
Loss of liberty, business opportunities and reputation
216. As a result of the Arrest Warrant, as at the date of filing this

statement of claim, the first plaintiff has been on bail for almost six
years.
217. Amongst other restrictions, the first plaintiff’s bail conditions

prevent him from leaving New Zealand.
218. As a result of being on bail for approximately six years, and the
ongoing threat of extradition and imprisonment, the first plaintiff
has suffered loss of:
(a) opportunities to develop further business ventures as an

internet entrepreneur; and
(b) reputation.
Legal costs
219. As a result of the Arrest Warrant, Extradition Proceeding and

Restraint Orders, the first plaintiff has incurred legal costs in New
Zealand and Hong Kong in proceedings.
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
49
Destruction of Megaupload group of companies
220. As a result of the Restraint Order, all of the second plaintiff’s

material assets were restrained.
221. As a result of the second plaintiff’s material assets having been

restrained, the second plaintiff, and the companies in the
Megaupload group of companies, were unable to meet their
ordinary business expenses as and when they fell due, including
(amongst other expenses):
(a) the cost of leasing servers on which to store customer

data;
(b) bandwidth; and
(c) staff salaries.
222. At the same time, the second plaintiff’s officers (including the first
plaintiff) were in custody and their assets were restrained such
that they were unable to either fund the business in the short term
or take legal action to challenge the Restraint Orders.
223. As a result, the second plaintiff was unable to continue trading

and ceased to do so.
224. At the time the Restraint Orders were granted, second plaintiff
was preparing to list on the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong at a
conservative valuation of not less than US$2.6 billion based on:
(a) 66 million registered users valued at US$40 per user;
(b) 50 million daily unique visitors;
(c) US$100 million revenue per annum; and
(d) US$45 million profit per annum.
225. But for the Restraint Order, the second plaintiff would have
continued to increase its registered user base and increase in
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
50
value such that it would now be valued at approximately US$10

billion based on:
(a) the number of registered users of Megaupload doubling

each year such that it would have had 500 million
registered users by 2017;
(b) advertising revenue and premium sales having increased

proportionately;
(c) costs having decreased significantly as a result of the price

of bandwidth having been approximately three times more
expensive in 2012 than it is now;
(d) revenue of US$300-500 million per annum; and
(e) a profit margin of 50 per cent.
226. As a result of the Restraint Orders:
(a) The second plaintiff has lost profits from Megaupload, and
all companies within the Megaupload group of companies,
since January 2012.
(b) The first plaintiff has lost:
(i) the value of his beneficial ownership of 68 per cent

of the second plaintiff; and
(ii) the value of his right to participate in the future

profits of the second plaintiff.
Option to purchase mansion
227. At the relevant time, the first plaintiff had an option to purchase
the property that he was then leasing at 186 Mahoenui Valley
Road, Coatesville (Property) on the expiration of the lease in
February 2013.
228. On or about 27 September 2012, the first plaintiff became

"ordinarily resident” in New Zealand for the purposes of the
Overseas Investment Act and would therefore, but for the New
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
51
Restraint Orders, have been in a position to purchase, and would

in fact have purchased, the Property.
229. In anticipation of exercising the option, the first plaintiff had made
improvements to the Property at a cost of approximately NZ$9.5
million.
230. The purchase price for the Property under the option was US$18
million or approximately NZD$21.6 million as at February 2013.
231. As a result of the restraining order, the first plaintiff was unable to
exercise the option to purchase the Property.
232. In or about June 2016, the Property was purchased for

approximately NZ$32.5 million.
WHEREFORE THE PLAINTIFFS CLAIM:
(a) The second plaintiff seeks damages in an amount to be

particularised prior to trial for lost profits from Megaupload,
and all companies within the Megaupload group of
companies, since January 2012.
(b) The first plaintiff seeks damages in an amount to be

particularised prior to trial comprising:
(i) the estimated value of his beneficial ownership of

68 per cent of the Megaupload group of companies;
(ii) lost business opportunities whilst on bail in New

Zealand since 22 February 2012;
(iii) legal costs since January 2012 on a solicitor-client

basis in proceedings in Hong Kong and New
Zealand relating directly or indirectly to the Arrest
Warrant and/or Restraint Order;
(iv) loss of his investment in improvements to the

Property;
(v) lost profit as a result of being unable to purchase

the property in an amount to be particularised prior
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
52
to trail but estimated to be approximately NZ$11

million (based on a purchase price under the option
of approximately NZ$21.6 million as at February
2013 and the value of the Property as at 2016 being
NZ$32.5 million).
(vi) Loss of reputation.
(c) Exemplary damages;
(d) General damages;
(e) Interest; and
(f) Costs.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION – ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND

CROWN LAW – NEGLIGENCE (REQUEST FOR SURRENDER
AND MINISTER’S NOTICE UNDER S 23 OF THE
EXTRADITION ACT 1999)
233. The Attorney-General and Crown Law owed the plaintiff a duty of
care in the exercise of their role as Central Authority under the
Extradition Act 1999 and US-NZ Treaty.
234. In breach of their duty, the Attorney-General and Crown Law

failed to identify that, contrary to the Extradition Act 1999, the
Request for Surrender was made in reliance on the Superseding
US Arrest Warrant, rather than the US Arrest Warrant on which
the Arrest Warrant was based and was therefore invalid.
235. As a result of the Minister’s Notice under s 23 of the Extradition

Act 1999 being invalid, and the Extradition Proceeding therefore
being ultra vires, the plaintiffs have suffered the loss pleaded at
paragraphs 215-232 hereof.
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
53






Property;

the Property in an amount to be particularised prior
NZ$32.5 million);
(vi) Loss of reputation;
(e) Interest; and
(f) Costs.
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
54
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION – ATTORNEY-GENERAL, CROWN

LAW AND POLICE – MISFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE
(PROVISIONAL ARREST WARRANT)
Public office
236. In preparing and pursuing the Arrest Warrant Application and

resulting Extradition Proceeding, the then Attorney-General, the
New Zealand Police, Crown Law, and their respective delegates,
employees, agents, officers and representatives, were acting as
public officers and exercising, or purporting to exercise, public
powers, including under the Extradition Act 1999, the US-NZ
Extradition Treaty, and the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters
Act 1992.
Unlawful exercise or purported exercise of office
237. The Attorney-General, the Police, Crown Law, and their

respective delegates, employees, agents, officers and
representatives, were acting as public officers and exercising, or
purporting to exercise, public powers, including under the
Extradition Act 1999 and the US-NZ Extradition Treaty in:
(a) preparing and pursuing the Arrest Warrant Application;
(b) procuring the Minister’s notice under s 23 of the Extradition

Act 1999; and
(c) pursuing the resulting Extradition Proceeding.
Malice
238. The Attorney-General, Crown Law and the Police knew or were
recklessly indifferent to the fact that the Arrest Warrant was
unlawful and would, if issued, cause harm to the plaintiffs
because:
(a) The Arrest Warrant was essential to commence the

Extradition Proceeding.
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
55
(b) The Extradition Proceeding was essential to the first

plaintiff being surrendered to the United States to face trial
in that jurisdiction.
(c) The Arrest Warrant was therefore essential to the restraint

orders to be sought on behalf of the United States over the
assets of the plaintiffs in Hong Kong. As pleaded in more
detail below, for the intended restraint order to be granted,
it was necessary for the High Court of Hong Kong to be
satisfied that there was a reasonable prospect of an
external confiscation order being granted in the United
States.
(d) The majority of the second plaintiff’s assets were in Hong

Kong. Accordingly, if the restraint order was granted in
Hong Kong, Megaupload would be unable to carry on
business and would be destroyed.
239. In preparing and pursuing the unlawful Arrest Warrant Application,

the Attorney-General, Crown Law and/or the Police acted:
(a) For the improper motive of making an example of the

plaintiffs to appease and or earn favour with the United
States and Hollywood interests.
(b) Knowing the Arrest Warrant Application was unlawful and

therefore outside the scope of their respective offices
because they knew or were recklessly indifferent to:
(i) the fact that:
(aa) there were no reasonable grounds to believe

that the offences for which the first plaintiff
was sought were extradition offences for the
purposes of s 20(1)(c) of the Extradition Act
1999;
(bb) they had not in fact considered whether there

were reasonable grounds to believe that the
offences for which the first plaintiff was
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
56
sought were extradition offences for the

purposes of s 20(1)(c) of the Extradition Act
1999; and/or
(cc) they were required to, but did not, disclose to

the District Court the matters pleaded at
paragraphs 96 to 119 hereof; or
(ii) the consequences for the plaintiffs if,

notwithstanding that, the Provisional Arrest Warrant
nevertheless issued.
240. In failing to disclose to the District Court that, the Superseding

Indictment having been issued, and the Indictment having
therefore been rendered invalid, Crown Law and/or the Police
acted unlawfully either:
(a) For the improper motive of making an example of the

plaintiffs to appease and or earn favour with the United
States and Hollywood interests.
(b) Knowing that, or being recklessly indifferent as to whether:
(i) there were no longer reasonable grounds for a

District Court Judge to believe that a warrant for the
arrest of the first plaintiff had been issued in the
United States (s 20(1)(a)); and
(ii) they were required to disclose the Superseding

Indictment, and its impact, to the District Court.
241. As a result of the Arrest Warrant being unlawfully issued, the

plaintiffs have suffered the loss pleaded at paragraphs 215-232
hereof.
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
57






Property;

NZ$32.5 million).
(e) Interest; and
(f) Costs.
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
58
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION – MALICIOUSLY PROCURING

AN ARREST WARRANT
242. The United States, the Attorney-General, Crown Law and/or the
Police procured the Provisional Arrest Warrant.
No reasonable and probable cause to procure warrant
243. The United States, the Attorney-General, Crown Law and/or the
Police did not have reasonable and probable cause to apply for
the Arrest Warrant because:
(a) There was no reasonable basis on which they could have

held such a belief and none was disclosed in the Arrest
Warrant Application or Arrest Warrant Memorandum. In
particular, there was no authority for the proposition that
online dissemination of copyright infringing works was an
offence under s 131 of the Copyright Act 1994.
(b) They lacked any bona fide subjective belief that they were
placing before the District Court Judge material sufficient to
meet the requirements of s 20 of the Extradition Act 1999.
In particular, they knew or were recklessly indifferent to
whether on the basis of the information presented to him
the District court Judge could reasonably be satisfied that
there were reasonable grounds to believe that the offence
for which the person was sought is an extradition offence
for the purposes of s 20(1)(c).
244. Even if the United States, the Attorney-General, Crown Law

and/or the Police had reasonable and probable cause to apply for
the Arrest Warrant at the time the Arrest Warrant Application was
made (which is denied), they ceased to have any reasonable and
probable cause to sustain the Arrest Warrant once the
Superseding Indictment was issued because:
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
59
(a) There was no reasonable basis on which they could have

held such a belief because the Indictment, and the US
Arrest Warrant obtained in reliance on the indictment, was
invalid and of no effect.
(b) They lacked any bona fide subjective belief that the District
Court Judge had had material before him sufficient to
believe that a warrant for the first plaintiff’s arrest had been
validly issued in the United States for the purposes of s
20(1)(a) of the Extradition Act 1999.
245. Despite this, the defendants breached their respective duties of

candour to the District Court by failing to disclose the absence of
grounds under ss 20(1)(a) and 20(1)(c) of the Extradition Act
1999.
Malice
246. By nevertheless pursuing and maintaining (by material non-

disclosure) the Arrest Warrant, the defendants acted with malice
towards the plaintiffs because:
(a) The defendants were motivated by the improper purpose

of:
(i) making an example of the plaintiffs;
(ii) winning favour with the United States and/or the

United States authorities; and/or
(iii) winning favour with the Studios for the New Zealand
Government.
(b) The defendants knew, or were recklessly indifferent as to

whether, pursuing and/or sustaining the Arrest Warrant in
the absence of any reasonable and probable cause to
procure the Arrest Warrant would cause harm to the
plaintiffs.
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
60
Loss suffered by Plaintiff
247. As a result of the United States, the Attorney-General, Crown Law

and/or the Police procuring the Arrest Warrant, the plaintiffs have
suffered the losses pleaded at paragraphs 215-232 hereof.






Property;

NZ$32.5 million).
DOT1.001_853.DOCX
61
(e) Interest; and
(f) Costs.
This document is filed by PHILIP CHARLES CREAGH solicitor for the

plaintiff of the firm Anderson Creagh Lai Limited. The address for service
of the plaintiff is Level 1, 110 Customs Street West, Auckland.
Documents for service on the plaintiff may be left at the address for
service or may be:
(a) Posted to the solicitor at PO Box 106-740, Auckland; or
(b) Transmitted to the solicitor by facsimile on (09) 300 3197; or
(c) Emailed to phil.creagh@acllaw.co.nz.
DOT1.001_853.DOCX

CIV-2017-404-3103 Dotcom V A-G & Ors

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CIV-2017-404-3103 Dotcom V A-G & Ors

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

UNDER the Crown Proceedings Act 1950

BETWEEN KIM DOTCOM, of Apartment 64, 143 Quay

AND MEGAUPLOAD LIMITED, a company duly

AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (ON BEHALF OF

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, Crown Law Office,

SOLICITOR ACTING: COUNSEL: COUNSEL:

AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (ON BEHALF OF

THE PLAINTIFFS BY THEIR SOLICITOR SAY:

1. The first plaintiff is Kim Dotcom, businessman, of Auckland.

2. The second plaintiff is Megaupload Limited, a company founded

4. The first defendant is named for and on behalf of the Crown in

5. The second defendant is named in these proceedings in his

7. The fourth defendant is the United States of America, the

8. The fifth defendant is named in these proceedings for and on

United States’ investigation into Megaupload

9. At all material times, the United States has been seeking, or

10. In or about March 2010, the United States Federal Bureau of

11. The investigation was triggered by a complaint lodged by the

(a) Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation;

(b) Paramount Pictures Corporation;

(c) Sony Pictures Entertainment;

(d) Universal Studios Productions LLP;

(e) Walt Disney Studios; and

(f) Warner Bros. Entertainment (together Studios).

12. In April 2014, the Studios commenced civil proceedings in the

allegations as are at issue in the Extradition Proceeding (US Civil

New Zealand’s interactions with the Studios and the United

(a) film productions and related commercial and legislative

(b) copyright infringement; and

(c) the plaintiffs.

14. In or around February 2010, the first plaintiff, via an immigration

15. On or about 10 March 2010, the then Minister of Justice, the

(a) Michael Ellis of the Motion Picture Association of Asia, a

(b) Tony Eaton of the New Zealand Federation Against

18. On or about 26 and 27 October 2010, the Prime Minister and

Tsujihara, then President of Warner Bros Home Entertainment.

(a) The Prime Minister agreed to give the content industry

(b) The employment law of New Zealand was changed at the

First plaintiff’s immigration to New Zealand

21. An internal NZSIS email dated 22 October 2010 states:

INZ [blank] has phoned me to advise that the

22. Residence was granted to the first plaintiff despite:

(a) His known and disclosed criminal convictions.

(b) The fact that he was known to be the subject of an active

24. On or about 14 October 2010, the NZSIS wrote to the Police

25. On or about 22 October 2010, NZSIS confirmed that the first

26. As pleaded above, on or about 26-27 October 2010, the Prime

(a) On or around 29 October 2010, INZ official Chris Biggs

Advice has been received that the

(b) Mr Biggs further noted that there was no indication of

It is therefore my opinion that the

(c) On or about 29 October 2010, Mr Biggs signed a Special

... we have no evidence to indicate

28. On or about 1 November 2010, the first plaintiff was granted

29. Despite having been granted residence, and the Overseas

approximately 45 hectares of land, the relevant ministers declined

New Zealand assistance with United States’ investigation into

30. On or about 14 October 2010, the NZSIS sent a letter to the

32. New Zealand’s involvement was part of a global operation co-

33. On or about 31 January 2011, the FBI provided to Police an