You are on page 1of 251

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA


AUCKLAND REGISTRY
TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CIV-2017-404-3103

UNDER the Crown Proceedings Act 1950

BETWEEN KIM DOTCOM

First plaintiff

AND MEGAUPLOAD LIMITED

Second plaintiff

AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (ON BEHALF OF


THE CROWN IN RIGHT OF NEW ZEALAND)

First defendant

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Second defendant

AFFIDAVIT OF KIM DOTCOM IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR


ORDERS PURSUANT TO RULE 9.17 AND APPLICATION FOR
SUBSTITUTED SERVICE
SWORN 19 MARCH 2018

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 Tel: (09) 304 1627 Telephone: (09) 377 5070
Email:phil.creagh@acllaw.co.nz Email: ron@22lorne.co.nz Email: simon@quaychambers.co.nz
AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (ON BEHALF OF
CROWN LAW OFFICE)

Third defendant

AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Fourth defendant

AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (ON BEHALF OF


NEW ZEALAND POLICE)

Fifth defendant
1

AFFIDAVIT OF KIM DOTCOM IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR


ORDERS PURSUANT TO RULE 9.17 AND APPLICATION FOR
SUBSTITUTED SERVICE SWORN 19 MARCH 2018

I, Kim Dotcom of Coatesville, Auckland, businessman, swear:

Introduction

1. I am the plaintiff in this proceeding.

2. Since 2012, the United States of America has been seeking my


extradition from New Zealand to face criminal charges on which I have
been indicted in the United States. I emphatically deny the allegations
against me in that proceeding. I am now in my seventh year of
defending such allegations.

3. The United States is the fourth defendant in this proceeding, in which


Megaupload and I claim damages for loss suffered as a result of:

(a) The provisional arrest warrant obtained by the United States


under the Extradition Act 1999, pursuant to which I was brought
before the extradition court, being invalid; and

(b) The United States’ request for surrender, and the Minister’s
notice under s 23(4) of the Extradition Act 1999, being invalid.

4. In the statement of claim dated 22 December 2017, I allege (amongst


other matters) that the extradition proceeding was politically motivated
and for an improper purpose. In particular, I believe it was
commenced to earn favour with the United States and the Hollywood
lobby by facilitating my extradition to face charges in the United States
criminal prosecution, which was itself politically motivated and for an
improper purpose. In short, I believe that the New Zealand authorities
considered that what was in the United States’ and Hollywood’s
interests was also in New Zealand’s interests. Accordingly,
independently of any valid legal obligation to do so, New Zealand set
about facilitating my extradition.

5. As I will set out in more detail below, the United States needed to
appease the Hollywood lobby because:
2

(a) Hollywood had historically been a major benefactor of the


Democrats, who were at the relevant time in power in the
United States and seeking re-election for a further term.
However, Hollywood was threatening to cut that support, on
which the democrats were disproportionately reliant relative to
the Republicans, due to Hollywood’s dissatisfaction with the
United States copyright regime and its perception that not
enough was being done to protect the interests of copyright
owners. The United States government of the day was under
significant pressure from Hollywood to “get tough” on copyright
infringement and therefore commenced the prosecution for the
ulterior purpose of making an example of me and Megaupload
to appease Hollywood.

(b) The complainants whose complaints triggered the investigation


that ultimately led to my indictment in the United States are the
major Hollywood film studios. They are key witnesses in the
United States criminal prosecution. They are also plaintiffs in a
civil claim against me in the United States which arises from
substantially the same factual allegations as the prosecution
and in which they are seeking damages of US$100 million.

6. Megaupload and I met the United States’ need to appease the


Hollywood lobby. However, because I was not based in the United
States, and extradition from Hong Kong (where I was then primarily
based) would be challenging, the United States needed help.
New Zealand could provide that help if I was a permanent resident.
As a junior member of the Five Eyes partnership, it would not have
been lost on New Zealand that helping the United States with this
issue would stand it in good stead with the United States.
New Zealand also had its own reasons for wanting to appease
Hollywood. It was trying to promote itself to Hollywood as a
destination for film productions at the time but the proposal to film the
Hobbit movies in New Zealand was suddenly in crisis.

7. The interests of the United States and New Zealand were therefore
perfectly aligned. I provided the perfect opportunity for New Zealand
to facilitate the United States’ show of force on copyright enforcement.
3

Megaupload was conspicuous by its success, not a United States


company, and at the forefront of innovative models for content delivery
over the internet that threatened Hollywood’s outdated business
model. I had a high public profile and, importantly, was not a United
States citizen. By facilitating my extradition, New Zealand could help
the United States solve its problem and show Hollywood that it was a
sympathetic jurisdiction. Under political pressure (that I describe
below), New Zealand enthusiastically embraced this opportunity from
2010 onwards. It used state resources in an unprecedented and, at
times, unlawful way to facilitate my extradition. It did all of this despite
no formal request for assistance having been made by the
United States until January 2012.

8. The relevant factual allegations occurred during the Obama


administration. Further, as I set out in more detail below, there is
reason to believe that Mr Obama had direct knowledge of the pleaded
issues. Mr Obama’s evidence is therefore directly relevant to the
motivation and purpose of the United States’ prosecution, the
facilitation of which was the motivation and purpose of the New
Zealand authorities’ conduct in relation to the extradition proceeding.

9. Annexed and marked “KD” is a paginated bundle of true copies of the


documents referred to in this affidavit. When I refer to a document, I
will refer to it by its page number in the bundle.

Hollywood campaign contributions and lobbying in the


United States

10. In the United States, the Democrat party has historically been
disproportionately reliant on funding and other support from
Hollywood.

11. Open Secrets is a non-profit and nonpartisan research group based in


Washington, D.C. that tracks the effects of money and lobbying on
elections and public policy. It maintains a public online database of its
information. Based on data from Open Secrets, between 2008 and
2014, the movie and television industry spent a total of
4

US$156,927,006 on campaign contributions and US$437,218,434 on


lobbying (KD-001).

12. An analysis by Open Secrets shows that:

(a) In the 2008 election cycle, the television and movie industry
contributed US$46,107,467 to United States political parties. Of
this, 81% went to the Democrats and 19% to the Republicans.

(b) In the 2010 election cycle, the television and movie industry
contributed US$24,251, 135 to United States political parties.
Of this, 76% went to the Democrats and 24% to the
Republicans.

(c) In the 2012 election cycle, the television and movie industry
contributed US$56, 113,844 to United States political parties.
Of this, 78% went to the Democrats and 22% to the
Republicans.

(d) In the 2014 election cycle, the television and movie industry
contributed US$28,656,889 to United States political parties. Of
this, 75% of this went to the Democrats and 25% to the
Republicans.

13. It is clear from this data that Hollywood spends an enormous amount
on campaign contributions and lobbying. It is also clear that, of the
amount spent, a disproportionate amount goes to the Democrat party.
The Democrats are therefore more reliant on Hollywood than the
Republicans.

The Stop Online Piracy Act

14. To understand the purpose of the United States criminal prosecution it


is necessary to understand the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA).

15. In 1998, the United States enacted the Digital Millennium Copyright
Act (DMCA). Broadly, the policy behind the DMCA was to limit the
liability of internet service providers (ISP) for copyright infringement by
their users, provided certain requirements were met. Essentially, it
5

was up to copyright owners like Hollywood, to police the enforcement


of their rights, not ISPs.

16. Hollywood, and other copyright owners, were unhappy with the
balance struck by the DMCA and, over the years following the DMCA’s
enactment, lobbied for amendments that would shift the burden of
policing copyright infringement from copyright owners to ISPs. SOPA,
which was introduced to the House of Representatives on 26 October
2011, was just one example of such lobbying.

17. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), which represents


the interests of the major Hollywood movie studios, was heavily
involved in drafting SOPA (KD-003). This is indicative of the level of
influence that the content industry enjoyed in Washington, D.C.,
particularly in Democrat circles.

18. If enacted, SOPA would have shifted the burden of policing copyright
infringement on the internet from copyright owners such as Hollywood
to ISPs.

19. SOPA provoked a public outcry. For example, a group of 110


intellectual property law professors wrote to Congress advising that
(KD-005):

(a) SOPA would redefine the standard of copyright infringement on


the Internet and "would make YouTube, Google, and numerous
other websites liable for copyright infringement".

(b) SOPA would allow the government to block Internet access.

(c) SOPA would allow any copyright holder to interfere with


websites being able to advertise or charge purchases to credit
cards, restricting the flow of electronic commerce.

20. The impact of SOPA on the internet as we know it would have been
huge. For example, SOPA would have forced ISPs to effectively
censor their users. It would also have restricted access to the internet.
Compliance costs for ISPs would have been prohibitive under SOPA.
Inevitably, such costs would then have been passed on to consumers
somehow.
6

21. The potential impact on free speech, access to the internet, and
freedom on the internet generated a groundswell of public opposition
to SOPA. This lead to millions of interventions to Congress opposing
the legislation. For example (KD-021):

(a) Demand Progress, a non-profit organisation formed to create


an online campaign against SOPA, generated 1.5 million
contacts to Congress in opposition to SOPA.

(b) More than 1 million contacts to Congress in opposition to SOPA


were driven by the non-profit organisation the Electronic
Frontier Foundation.

(c) A petition at Google recorded over 4.5 million signatures.

(d) Over 3 million people independently emailed Congress to


express opposition.

(e) Lawmakers collected over 14 million names, including the


names of 10 million voters, in opposition to the legislation.

22. Arguably the high point of the groundswell of opposition to SOPA was
the internet “blackout" – where websites blacked out their sites and/or
linked to a website with information on how to protest against SOPA
and PIPA. Approximately 115,000 websites, including Google,
Wikipedia, Tumblr, and Reddit, took part in the blackout. Megaupload
also took part. We also issued a press release and sent a mass email
to all of our users informing them about the threat to Internet freedom
posed by SOPA and urged them to contact Congress and join the
movement against SOPA.

23. The groundswell of opposition to SOPA was a success. In the face of


such opposition, and with the tide of public sentiment overwhelmingly
against SOPA, the White House took an ambivalent position, and
ultimately did not publicly support SOPA (KD-028). Congressional
support for the proposed legislation was withdrawn.
7

The MPAA’s response

24. The MPAA responded by publicly threatening the White House with
the reduction or withdrawal of campaign contributions on which the
Democrats were so reliant. This was a crucial time for the Democrats.
The United States presidential election, where Mr Obama sought a
second term as President, was held on 6 November 2012

25. In an interview on Fox News, the head of the MPAA, Chris Dodd
stated (KD-030)

Candidly, those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for


support need to understand that this industry is watching
very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their
job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a cheque for you
when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any
attention to me when my job is at stake.

26. The message to the White House was plain: do not expect funding if
you do not advance the MPAA’s legislative agenda.

The United States prosecution

27. On 20 January 2012, the day after this statement, I was arrested.

28. I believe this was always the plan. The indictment was issued on
5 January 2012. If SOPA had been enacted as originally expected, I
believe I would have been arrested, and Megaupload shut down, to
send a strong message to ISPs about SOPA. With SOPA having
failed, and the MPAA threatening to withdraw its considerable financial
support, it was all the more important that the White House send a
strong message to Hollywood and other copyright owners about its
commitment to enforcement against online copyright infringement.

29. Megaupload was an obvious target because neither it nor its


management were based in the United States. This was consistent
with the messaging that Hollywood had tried to create around SOPA -
that it was target at foreign ISPs and nothing for United States-based
ISPs to be concerned about. As the blackout demonstrated, United
States-based ISPs did not believe this reassurance.
8

30. Megaupload was highly successful in earning profits through


subscription fees and advertising. The business became conspicuous
for its innovation and success as a market leader. Our innovation
challenged historic and outdated business practices of copyright
owners that had failed to keep pace with the way in which the public
consumed content. Megaupload offered a number of products and
services including video streaming, photo storage, live web cam
streaming, venture capital, advertising, and online news media in
specialist areas. At the time of my arrest, Megaupload was also
looking to develop what would at the time have been ground-breaking
music and movie offerings.

31. Megaupload and I were, therefore, the perfect candidates for the
Obama administration to make an example of so as to appease the
Hollywood interests on whom they were so reliant for campaign
contributions for their bid for a second term in office.

32. In the months immediately following my arrest, once released on bail, I


was determined to get to the bottom of why I was in this situation. I
used my connections in Hong Kong, and through that network was
given the name of a Mr Thomas Hart.

33. At the time, Mr Hart was a lawyer and lobbyist in Washington, D.C.
with strong connections to the Democrats and White House. In a
telephone call with me he described how he had made a documentary
for the President to assist with his election efforts. I have transcribed
that call (KD-033).

34. Throughout my discussions with Mr Hart, I found him to be reliable and


I believed him. I was put in touch with him by a trustworthy source and
he was clearly well connected to the Obamas.

35. During our call, Mr Hart confirmed to me that:

(a) The Vice President was at the centre of my prosecution, having


given the go-ahead for it.

(b) President Obama was dissatisfied with the way it had been
handled.
9

Biden did admit to have … you know, kind of


started it, you know, along with support from others
but it was Biden’s decision…

[…]

What he [President Obama] expressed to me was a


growing concern about the matter. He indicated an
awareness of that it had not gone well, that it was
more complicated than he thought, that he will turn
his attention to it more prominently after
November…

(c) The Administration wanted to “show a strong arm and a


commitment to enforcement”.

(d) President Obama was “questioning the whole thing,” which I


understood to be a reference to his degree of commitment to
the prosecution.

White House meetings

36. What Thomas Hart told me is confirmed by the publicly available White
House visitor logs. These logs show (KD-036):

(a) On 20 July 2011, Neil MacBride met with the Vice President’s
deputy chief of staff, Alan Hoffman, at the White House.
Mr MacBride was from 2001 to 2005, Chief Counsel and Staff
Director for Joe Biden, while Mr Biden was still a senator.
Later, Mr MacBride was head of the Business Software
Alliance’s global anti-piracy division. At the time of the meeting,
Mr MacBride was serving as the United States Attorney for the
Eastern District of Virginia, where I was indicted. As such,
Mr MacBride had overall responsibility for my prosecution.
Annexed and marked (KD-054) is a copy of a recent notice
outlining his appointment to influence law firm Davis Polk
outlining his professional history.

(b) On 27 July 2011, there was a meeting at the White House


between members of the Hollywood lobby, including the MPAA,
and the Obama administration. The attendees included:

(i) The (then) Vice President, Joe Biden.


10

(ii) Chris Dodd, who was then Chairman and Chief


Executive Officer of the MPAA. Until joining the MPAA
in or around March 2011, Mr Dodd had been a senator
for over 30 years. He was also a personal friend of Vice
President Biden. Annexed and marked (KD-054) is a
biography of Mr Dodd. At the time, Mr Dodd and
Mr Biden appeared to have a very strong and close
relationship. Annexed and marked (KD-058) and (KD-
060) are documents confirming Vice President Biden's
admiration for Mr Dodd. In the video at (KD-060)
Vice President Biden confirmed his close connection
with Mr Dodd and how that results in genuine access
and influence.

(iii) Michael (Mike) Ellis of the Motion Picture Association of


Asia. Mr Ellis is a former police officer, an expert in
extradition, and was based in Hong Kong, where the
Mega Group of companies was also primarily based.
Annexed and marked (KD-061) is a copy of the
biography for Mr Ellis referring to him as an expert in
extradition. As discussed in more detail below, Mr Ellis
had previously met with the then Minister of Justice,
Simon Power, in New Zealand in 2010.

(iv) Leading Hollywood executives.

(c) On 9 December 2011, Mr Dodd met, one on one, with


President Obama for approximately 2.5 hours in the Oval Office
for what was described as a “private lunch” (KD-048 – KD 053).

37. When I was arrested, the United States touted the prosecution as
“among the largest criminal copyright cases ever brought by the
United States” (KD-064). It seems inevitable that the Megaupload
prosecution was discussed at these meetings given:

(a) The profile that the Megaupload prosecution clearly had at the
highest levels of the Obama administration;

(b) The timing of these meetings; and


11

(c) The persons in attendance, including the fact that one of them –
Mr Ellis – is an extradition expert who, as discussed in more
detail below, had earlier met with New Zealand’s then Minister
of Justice, Simon Power.

38. I believe that the prosecution was driven by the strong personal and
political connections between Hollywood and the Obama
administration.

Alignment of New Zealand’s interests with the United States’ and


MPAA’s

39. I have set out above why I believe the United States prosecution was
politically motivated and for an improper purpose. I believe that the
extradition proceeding in New Zealand was also. There would
obviously be no extradition proceeding but for the United States
prosecution. In that sense, the motivation and purpose of the
extradition proceeding is inevitably the same as that of the underlying
prosecution. However, in addition, there is evidence that New Zealand
went beyond the requirements of its role as requested state and took
steps to facilitate my extradition. In addition, at the time, New Zealand
had its own reasons for wishing to earn favour with the MPAA.

40. In February 2010, via my immigration consultant, I expressed an


interest in migrating to New Zealand.

41. Soon after this, on 10 March 2010, the then Minister of Justice, the
Honourable Simon Power, met with Mr Ellis of the Motion Picture
Association of Asia and Tony Eaton of the New Zealand Federation
Against Copyright Theft, the New Zealand arm of the MPAA (KD-067).
March 2010 is the same month that the MPAA lodged the complaint
about Megaupload which led to the United States prosecution.

42. As noted above, Mr Ellis is a former police officer who was at that time
based in Hong Kong and responsible for the MPAA’s enforcement
program in Asia. He also claimed to be an extradition expert.
Megaupload was based in Hong Kong. Mr Ellis later met at the
White House with Vice President Biden, Mr Dodd and representatives
of members of the MPAA.
12

43. To my knowledge, there have not been any other requests for
surrender by the United States involving allegations of online copyright
infringement that might require Mr Ellis to meet with the then
Vice President of the United States and the then Minister of Justice of
New Zealand. Given the timing and attendees of the meeting, it again
seems inevitable that the prosecution of Megaupload, my proposed
immigration to New Zealand, and my extradition were discussed.

44. Between 26 and 27 October 2010, the Prime Minister and other senior
ministers met with a Hollywood delegation, led by Kevin Tsujihara,
then President of Warner Bros Home Entertainment (KD-068).

45. Following these meetings, the Prime Minister agreed to give


Hollywood significant tax incentives to ensure that The Hobbit trilogy
was filmed in New Zealand. These incentives resulted in
approximately NZ$200 million cost to the New Zealand taxpayer as
well as changes to New Zealand's employment law in favour of film
studios (KD-069).

46. I believe that the purpose of the meeting between Mike Ellis, Mr Eaton
and Mr Power was to lay the groundwork for the United States’
anticipated extradition request. It is otherwise difficult to make sense
of why, as discussed below:

(a) “Political pressure” was later brought to bear on my residency


application;

(b) I was granted residency despite the convictions I had disclosed


and despite being the subject of an FBI investigation; and

(c) Having been granted residency against the odds, I was


declined the necessary Overseas Investment Office (OIO)
consent to purchase the Coatesville mansion.

“Political Pressure”

47. At around the same time the Government was considering whether to
grant employment and tax concessions to Hollywood, Immigration
New Zealand (INZ) was considering my application for permanent
residence and being subjected to “political pressure” to grant it.
13

48. The following chronology emerges from documents I have obtained


through requests under the Official Information Act 1982 and Privacy
Act 1993. In a letter dated 8 July 2014 (KD-073) the Director of the
NZSIS, Rebecca Kitteridge, disclosed to me material that had not
previously been released despite complaints to the Privacy
Commissioner and the Inspector-General. The letter followed a
request from Mr David Fisher of The New Zealand Herald under the
Official Information Act 1982. The emails disclosed are partially
redacted. It is therefore difficult to identify who is sending which email
to whom but what happened and when is clear enough.

49. On 12 October 2010 my residency application was put on hold by


NZSIS (KD-084). Around that time, I was starting to lose patience with
the residency process. I gave INZ a deadline of 1 November 2010 to
process my application, failing which I would abandon it. But, that
cannot explain how I was granted residence when there was a known
criminal investigation into my business activities.

50. On 22 October 2010 there is an email at 11:21 a.m. stating (KD-097):

INZ [REDACTED] 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.

Can you advise INZ [REDACTED] as to what is


happening. Naturally I cannot go back via phone or email
on this case to [REDACTED]. You will need to ensure that
the CEO is appropriately [sic] briefed on this case. Over to
you.

51. The reference to being unable to go "back via phone or email on this
case to [REDACTED]" suggests a reluctance to put the matter in
writing, perhaps out of a concern as to accountability or later
disclosure.

52. At 11.45 a.m. the same day there is an email stating (KD-096):

...but little has changed with this case since her email last
week. Kim DOTCOM is not of security concern but is likely
to soon become the subject of a joint FBI / NZ Police
criminal investigation. We have passed this over to NZ
Police:
14

53. At 12:48 p.m. the same day there was a further email stating (KD-
096):

Since DOTCOM is not of security concern, there is no


reason for his application to be on hold with us. Please
can you inform your INZ contacts of this, also noting that
DOTCOM is the subject of a criminal investigation and that
they need to discuss the case with NZ Police before they
proceed with granting him PR.

54. On Tuesday 26 October 2010 at 9:14 a.m., at the same time that the
Prime Minister was meeting with Hollywood executives that were well
known to the public at the time, there is a further email stating (KD-
096):

... just a bit of an FYI re: DOTCOM. Wonder what "Political


Pressure" INZ are under??

55. On Wednesday 27 October 2010 at 4:55 p.m. an email states (KD-


099):

Hi [REDACTED] Below is the response [REDACTED]


replied to [REDACTED] when [REDACTED] from INZ was
questioning our hold on DOTCOM. Basically we don't
have anything else to add but I strongly suggest you tell
Theo to discuss the case with NZ Police before DOTCOM
is granted PR. Just from looking at his records INZ do
have enough on his criminal history to not give him PR
and he is [REDACTED] (The link below is FBI/NZ Police
corr)

56. The reference to “Theo” must be to “Theo Kuper" because, on


Thursday 28 October 2010 at 9:41 a.m., there was an email that
stated (KD-113):

[REDACTED] thanks for this. However can you let Theo


Kuper know by secure comms the background regarding
the FBI/NZ Police as he has a meeting with the Minister of
Immigration at 1500hrs today about Mr DOTCOM.

57. The reference to “secure comms” again indicates that it was thought
there was something exceptional about my application and/or concern
about disclosure.

58. I believe that the "political pressure" was pressure to grant me


residence in New Zealand so that I could then be extradited by the
Untied States. It would appear that the groundwork for this had been
15

laid earlier in the year when Mr Ellis met with Mr Power. The fact that
the FBI had already been in contact with the New Zealand authorities
about conducting a joint operation, before I had even been granted
residency, and well before any formal request for assistance had been
made, confirms this.

59. Extradition from New Zealand would have been more straightforward
for the United States than extradition from Hong Kong, as the
United States’ experience in trying to extradite Edward Snowden from
Hong Kong confirms.

60. By late October 2012, there was even more pressure on New Zealand
to help the United States by facilitating my extradition. The Hollywood
executives were in town, the Hobbit production appeared to be
slipping through New Zealand’s fingers, and I was threatening to walk
away from my residence application.

Permanent residency granted despite FBI investigation

61. Because of the convictions I had disclosed in my application, INZ


considered that a “special direction” was necessary before I could be
granted residence. I therefore applied for a special direction through
my immigration consultant.

62. On 29 October 2010, Chris Biggs of INZ issued a memorandum


recording the decision on the request for a special direction (KD-122).
Under the heading “5.0 Factors against a special direction”, Mr Biggs
notes (KD-126):

5.0 Factors against a special direction

The main factor against the issue of a special direction is


the applicant's convictions in 2001 and 2003 for what are
effectively, dishonesty offences.

Other lesser negative factors are the extensive negative


publicity concerning the applicant [Tag 17] and his status
in Thailand as "persona non grata," [Tags 16 and 18].

The negative publicity, a sample of which is at Tag 17,


must be considered against the applicant's clear police
certificates (apart from the convictions declared in
Germany) and the fact we have no evidence to indicate
16

that any law enforcement agency currently has an


investigation underway into the applicant or his business.

63. However, it is clear that, at that time, the New Zealand agencies were
well aware of the FBI investigation into me.

64. Indeed, on the same day, Mr Biggs noted (KD-140):

8.4 Possible deferral of application

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.

Policy at A5.30 has provision for applications to be


deferred for up to six months in certain prescribed
circumstances. Those circumstances in the policy
[A5.30(b)(i) to (iii)] that could possibly apply to the
applicant are as follows:

i. has been charged with any offence which, on conviction


would make either A5.20 or A5.25(a) to (f) apply to that
applicant; or

ii. is under investigation for such an offence; or

iii. is wanted for questioning about such an offence; or…

65. Accordingly, there was a clear recognition of the FBI investigation and
the fact that it related to Megaupload, which the memorandum notes
was the source of the funds that allowed me to qualify in principle for
the Investor Plus category.

66. Mr Biggs then states in the memorandum (KDC-142):

The information available on this matter is simply a


general comment and does not indicate that the applicant
has been charged with any alleged offenses, that he is
actually under investigation for any alleged offences or
that he is wanted for questioning about any alleged
offences.

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 in the policy.

67. This is of course contrary to the discussion above earlier in October


2010 about me being the subject of a joint investigation by the FBI and
17

New Zealand Police. Although I have been denied access to the


particular information that INZ, the NZSIS and/or New Zealand Police
held regarding the FBI investigation, even based on the limited
information available, it was plainly wrong to say that there was
nothing to indicate that I was actually under investigation for any
alleged offences or that I was wanted for questioning about any
alleged offences.

68. On the same day, 29 October 2010, Mr Biggs signed the Special
Direction relating to my application, in which he stated (KD-126):

... we have no evidence to indicate that any law


enforcement agency currently has an investigation
underway into the applicant [Dotcom] or his business.

69. This was simply not true. There clearly was evidence. The only
explanation for INZ’s contradictory approach is the "political pressure"
to grant my application.

70. On 1 November 2010, my application was granted (KD-144). I believe


that my ultimatum to INZ to process my application by 1 November
2010 triggered a concern I might walk away from my application and
New Zealand. This would have been of grave concern to the
Government, which, at that time, was in negotiations with the
Hollywood lobby. The last thing they would have needed at that
delicate stage of the negotiations was for me to walk away from
New Zealand and return to Hong Kong, where extradition would be
more difficult. I believe that this concern is what prompted the
“political pressure” that led to my application finally being granted
despite the presence of factors that would have caused anyone else’s
application to have been rejected.

71. Shortly after I was granted permanent residence, New Zealand began
to assist the United States in earnest, despite no formal request for
assistance having been made by the United States through the
appropriate channels at that time.

72. By November 2010, the Police had already completed a “subject


profile” on me (KD-149), presumably in response to interest from the
18

FBI. Having granted me permanent residence, the New Zealand


authorities wasted no time in setting about extraditing me.

Refusal of consent to buy Coatesville mansion

73. My belief as to why I was granted residency was confirmed by what


happened next.

74. I had made an application to the OIO to buy the Coatesville property I
was renting at the time, plus two other properties. The total purchase
price would have been $37 million. The OIO became aware of the
FBI’s interest in me following information provided by INZ (KD-153).

75. My application was considered by OIO staff and then passed to the
then Minister for Land Information, the Honourable Maurice
Williamson. On 7 April 2011, my application was approved by
Mr Williamson (KD-168).

76. The application was then passed to the Honourable Simon Power in
his capacity as the Associate Minister of Finance. As noted above,
Mr Power had of course met with Mike Ellis of the MPAA and
Tony Eaton of its New Zealand representative, FACT, in March 2010,
after I had expressed an intention to move to New Zealand.

77. On 18 July 2011, Mr Power declined my application. On 23 July 2011


Mr Williamson then hand wrote on the report (KD-168):

After consultation and further discussion I support the


decision to decline the application for Mr Dotcom.

78. It would appear that, although my character was apparently good


enough for me to be granted residence in November 2010, in July
2011 it was not considered good enough for me to buy property in
New Zealand. Purchasing property in New Zealand would of course
have been entirely consistent with being granted residency under the
Investor Plus category, as I had been. Indeed, the special direction
analysis had noted (KD-125):

4.5 Contribution to the New Zealand economy

This has already occurred and will continue to do so if the


applicant is granted residence. He is currently seeking 010
19

approval to purchase a property valued at some NZD30


million and has already purchased another property as
well as motor vehicles and other consumables.

79. Purchasing property was identified as a factor that favoured the grant
of the special direction.

80. The Honourable Mr Power clearly did not want me purchasing


$37 million of real estate, presumably because he knew that the
United States was going to seek forfeiture of my assets and he did not
want what was then the most expensive property in New Zealand
being forfeited to the United States government.

81. It then seems that Simon Power's office informed the Prime Minister's
office of the decision to decline my application (KD-169). I do not
understand the need to do this, unless, as I believe to have been the
case, the Prime Minister's office was interested in my potential
extradition.

82. The only explanation for the contradictory approach to my residency


application and my OIO application is that the Government of the day
engineered my obtaining residence but prevented me from buying real
estate here because it knew that I would not be here for long.

“Brownie points”

83. A further example of New Zealand’s eagerness to use me to win


favour with the United States is the New Zealand Customs Service
encouraging staff to trade information about me for, in the words of a
senior manager at Customs, “brownie points” with the United States.

84. On or about 16 September 2011, the then manager of Customs


Integrated Targeting Operations Centre emailed staff as follows (KD-
170):

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.

85. The Integrated Targeting Operations Centre collects personal


information about travellers which Customs is empowered under
20

certain circumstances to pass to other countries. To my knowledge,


even after the “brownie points” email became public, and Customs
was subjected to extensive criticism for its casual approach to
handling personal information, Customs never suggested that it would
have been lawful in the circumstances to deal with my personal
information in this way.

86. Again, this was before any formal request for assistance had been
made by the United States. Despite that, the New Zealand authorities
appeared well aware of the United States’ intentions towards me and
were clearly eager to help.

Intervention of the former Attorney-General

87. The former Attorney-General, the Honourable Christopher Finlayson


QC, has throughout taken an unusually personal involvement in my
case and, at times, directly intervened in it. This includes expressly
and personally taking control of and denying my requests for access to
my personal information, despite the Supreme Court determining this
to be my basic legal entitlement in Dotcom v United States of America
[2014] 1 NZLR 355.

88. In documents filed in the High Court, Crown Law has described the
Honourable Mr Finlayson QC as the person on whom the practical and
legal responsibility of advancing the United States’ request for my
extradition fell while he held the office of Attorney-General.

89. I believe that the Honourable Mr Finlayson QC has been involved in


my case since well before the United States’ formal request for
assistance (KD-172) and (KD-180). The Honourable Mr Finlayson QC
also attended the meeting on 26 and 27 October 2010 with the then
Prime Minister and a Hollywood delegation led by the then President
of Warner Bros, Mr Kevin Tsujihara. This was notionally in his
capacity as Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage. However, he was
at that time the Attorney-General and therefore, according to
Crown Law, had practical and legal responsibility for my extradition.
Given that this is around the time that the “political pressure” was
being applied to INZ to process my residency application, and the
21

New Zealand authorities began assisting the United States in earnest


not later than 2 November 2011, I believe it is inevitable that I would
have been discussed at those meetings.

90. The former Attorney-General has blocked my attempts to obtain


information about this and other aspects of my case. In April 2015, in
reliance on the Supreme Court’s finding in Dotcom v United States of
America [2014] 1 NZLR 355 (at [121]-[122]) and the decision of this
court in Dotcom v United States of America [2014] NZHC 2550, I
made requests under the Privacy Act 1993 for personal information
held about me by certain Government departments, including (but not
limited to) the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Ministry
of Business Innovation and Employment, the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs and Trade, the Ministry of Justice and the New Zealand Police.
On behalf of the then Attorney-General, the then Solicitor-General
responded to those requests by letter dated 5 August 2015 (KD-219).
He said:

In the particular circumstances of this case, the Attorney-


General considers, in terms of s 39(b)(ii) of the Privacy
Act, the information sought, to the extent it is held by other
agencies, is more closely connected with his functions as
Attorney-General. Accordingly, I understand most recipient
agencies have informed you the request has been
transferred to the office of the Attorney-General.

(emphasis added)

91. Having been transferred to Crown Law, my requests were rejected on


the grounds that they “would run to a very substantial number of
documents” and were vexatious. I challenged this refusal in the
Human Rights Review Tribunal and am presently awaiting the
Tribunal’s decision. The Tribunal is also considering whether the
decisions to transfer my requests to the Attorney-General was lawful.

Unlawful interception

92. It is well known that the Government Communications Security Bureau


(GCSB) has admitted that it unlawfully intercepted my communications
between 16 December 2011 – well before New Zealand had received
22

any formal request for assistance from the United States – until
16 February 2012.

93. This unlawful interception is the subject of a separate High Court


proceeding (CIV-2013-404-2168 Dotcom v Attorney-General). I do not
therefore propose to go into detail about it here. I simply note that,
even if it was lawful to spy on a New Zealand permanent resident,
spying for the purposes of a copyright infringement case, in which no
issues of national security are alleged, does not fall within the
objectives of the GCSB as then defined under s 7 of the Government
Communications Security Bureau Act 2003. The involvement of the
GCSB was an extraordinary misuse of state power to assist the
United States. So eager was the GCSB to assist that they did so in
breach of their own legislation.

Execution of arrest and search warrants

94. The conduct of the Police in planning and executing the search and
arrest warrants on 20 January 2012 has also been the subject of
separate High Court proceedings, which have since been settled.
Again, I do not therefore propose to revisit that conduct here in any
detail. In the context of this application, and in particular my allegation
that the extradition proceeding was commenced and continued for an
improper purpose, I simply note that the deployment by Police of the
Special Tactics Group (STG) and the Armed Offenders Squad (AOS)
was out of all proportion to a straightforward operation to arrest some
middle aged businessmen for alleged copyright infringement at an
open and readily accessible property. At least 30 heavily armed STG
and AOS officers, carrying pistols and M4 Bushmaster rifles, stormed
our home and held our family, staff and guests at gunpoint. Two
helicopters and a number of police vehicles were used to deploy the
armed officers and other staff.

95. The Police were quick to trumpet the raid in a series of misleading
press releases issued while I was in custody and unable to respond
(KD-221-KD-225). I believe these press releases were intended to,
and did, create a narrative that cast me in an unfavourable light, and
KD-002

I 2004 14 $29,979,679 $26,220,054 $3,703,125 $56,500 $21,906,327 $7,965,284 73% 27%


2002 8 $37,377,109 $7,719,987 $3,307,114 $26,350,008 $30,216,014 $7,130,015 81% 19%
2000 13 $32,818,165 $14,541,444 $3,524,569 $14,752,152 $22,263,033 $10,373,763 68% 32%
1998 14 $15,194,465 $6,617,911 $3,257,879 $5,318,675 $9,676,605 $5,390,605 64% 35%
1996 11 $18,168,734 $7,599,894 $2,876,506 $7,692,334 $12,041,591 $6,073,251 66% 33%
1994 15 $9,928,464 $5,425,519 $2,446,940 $2,056,005 $7,453,096 $2,461,076 75% 25%
1992 13 $12,965,940 $7,801,505 $2,551,470 $2,612,965 $10,023,507 $2,868,129 77% 22%
1990 14 $6,337,000 $3,817,340 $2,519,660 $0 $4,622,701 $1,710,399 73% 27%

Total 13 $350,888,210 $218,059,678 $51,209,070 $81,619,462 $245,039,537 $81,966,939 75% 25%

tThese numbers show how the industry ranks in total campaign giving as compared to more than 80 other industries. Rankings are shown only for
I
I industries (such as the Automotive industry) - not for widely encompassing "sectors" (such as Transportation) or more detailed "categories" (like car
dealers).

METHODOLOGY: The numbers on this page are based on contributions of $200 or more from PACs and individuals to federal candidates and from PACs,
soft money (including directly from corporate and union treasuries) and individual donors to political parties and outside spending groups, as reported to
the Federal Election Commission. Donations to Democrats. Donations to Republicans, and the associated percentages are based solely on contributions
to candidates and parties, independent expenditures and electioneering communications are not reflected in the breakdown by party. While election cycies
are shown in charts as 1995, 1998, 2QD0 etc. they actually represent two-year periods. For example, the 2002 election cycle runs from January 1, 2001 to
December 31,2002.

Data for the current election cycle were released by the Federal Election Commission on Monday, March 09, 2015.

NOTE: Soft money contributions to the nationai parties were not publicly disclosed until the 1991-92 election cycle, and were banned by the Bipartisan
Campaign Finance Reform Act following the 2002 elections. Contributions to Outside Spending groups legalized by the 2010 Citizens United v. Federai
Election Commission Supreme Court decision are iisted in the "SottfOutside Money" column as are donations of "Levin" funds to state and local party
committees. Levin funds were created by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but piease credit the Center for Responsive Politics.

Count Cash & Make Change. © O O O O I«Ap^sro^


Join our mailing list and get our weekly money-
in-politics newsletter.
OpenSecrets.org is your nonpartisan guide to money's influence on U.S.
elections and public policy. Whether you’re a voter, journalist, activist, student
or interested citizen, use our free site to shine light on your government. Sign Me Up

About Us Politicians & Elections Influence & Lobbying News & Analysis Resources

Mission Presidential nterest Groups OpenSecrets Blog Learn

About the Site Congressional Elections Lobbying Reports Create

Board Congress Revolving Door OpenSecrets in the News Community

Staff Congressional Committees PACs Center Press Releases

Awards & Accolades Joint Fundraising Committees Organizations Issue Profiles


Take Action
Funders Personal Finances 527s Campaign Finance Links
Donate
Financial Information Outside Spending Mail List Sign-up
Employment Earmarks

Internships Political Parties

Training Opportunities 2014 Overview


Testimonials Historical Elecitons

Contact Us Get Locall


KD-003

httpi.ymediadecoder,blogs,nytimes,com..'2011,11 P C | ^ SOPA Will Be Changed to ... X St *

SECTIONS g; HOME Q SEARCH ®l)e KcUt JSork ®lmcs SUBSCRIBE NOW


LOGIN Ct

fiETimrtG

Retirees’ Futures Hinge on What Could Raising Taxes Theranos, a Blood Test Puerto Rico Governor's
> Candidates' Plans for on the 1% Do? Surprising
Amounts
1 Start-Up, Faces F.D.A.
Scrutiny
Fiscal Oversight Plan
Social Security Raises Doubts

Van Cleef & Arpels DISCOVER MIDNIGHT PLANETARIUM


»

Media Decoder
Behind the Scenes, Between Ihe Lines
Search Media Decoder SI \RCH

PREVIOUS POST NEX- POST


Expect Some Toning Down of Antipiracy Bills, Says < CBS Wins With a Piers Moi^an Stru ®les >
Fashion Show and to Beat King's Rc"ings
Movie Industiy Supporter Rudolph

By MICHAEL CtEPLY NOVEMBER 30, 2011 4:27 PM


LOS ANGELES — Look for changes in the proposed antipiracy
legislation that has giants in the entertainment and technology
industries squared off against each other, but nothing extensive
enough to please aU of the legislation’s opponents. That was the
message from Michael O’Leaiy, the senior executive vice president
for global pohcy and external affairs of the Motion Picture
Association of America, during a telephone news briefing on
Wednesday.

“We will come forward with language that will address some of the
legitimate concerns” of technology companies that have opposed
the Stop Online Piracy Act in the House, and a similar Protect I.P.
Act in the Senate, Mr. O’Leary said.

He said those who were pushing the far-reaching antipiracy


legislation have been huddling with Congressional staff members
from both parties and both the House and Senate in the last few
days, in an effort to answer some objections raised by Google,
Yahoo and others who say the bills reach too far.

Mr. O’Leaiy appeared on the call with Kathy Garmezy, the associate
executive director for government and international affairs of the
Directors Guild of America, and Scott Harbinson, a government
affairs officer with the Internationa] Alliance of Theatrical Stage
Employees.

The proposed bills are intended to combat foreign-based Web sites


that traffic in stolen copyrighted content by forcing sites that assist
them through searches, payments or other means to sever those ARCHIVE I Select Morf^ s
connections. Tech companies say that such steps would open the
door to huge business and government intervention into the free
flow of the Internet. RECENT POSTS

Mr. O’Leary and his companions on the call declined to say Fox Offers an Early Glimpse of Its New Seaso-i

Tbe Fox network announced four new dramas and Five i ;w


specifically what changes in the bills they might support — and Mr.
comedies It has ordered for the next television
O’Leaiy strongly cautioned that he believed that some technology season.Read more...
-j
companies and public advocates were bound to remain unhappy See All Media News in One Place
with modified version of the bills. ►
The New York Times’ Media news can now be found al ie
Media & Advertising section frort.Read more... “
KD-004
“Ifs elU rhetoric and there are no proposals,” he said of the position Random House Adds a Big Name in Fitness
staked out by the opponents to the bills. “From where I sit, it’s hard David Zinczenko, the ibmier Rodale executive who wrol : the
to see that as anything but a pretext for running out the clock and “Eat This, Not That” series, wili write three books on exipcise,
diet and nutrition, and form a new imprint. Zinc
preserving the status quo.”
ink.Read more..

Mr. O’Leaiy and his allies expressed confidence that the legislation NPR Series on Race Aims to Build a Wider
E/
Audience m 13
would pass in some form. But they declined to say when or how it
The race, ethnicity and cuiture reporting in NPR’s senes
might move through some considerable opposition in Congress. "Changing Races' is part of the network's strategy to “c i better
about mirroring Amenca," the chief executive
“There are lots of hurdles to he overcome,” said Mr. O’Leaiy, who says.Read more...

acknowledged that the holidays and the coming turmoil of an Alec Baldwin Said to Be in Talks to Join NBCt Late-
election year would not make things any easier. Night Lineup ■ 16
The Emmy-winning actor may repiace Carson Daiy in a ite-
night half hour interview program, according to one exe ntive
invoived in the network’s program pl0nning.Reari more.^.
^ SHARE
KD-005

November 15, 2011

An open letter to the House of Representatives:

We write to express our concerns about H.R. 3261, the so-called Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). A
very similar bill is pending in the Senate under the name PROTECT-IP Act. In July, more than 100 law
professors focused on intellectual property law wrote to express our concerns with that Act; we attach a
copy of that letter below.

While there are some differences between SOPA and PROTECT-IP, nothing in SOPA makes any effort
to address the serious constitutional, innovation, and foreign policy concerns that we expressed in that
letter. Indeed, in many respects SOPA is even worse than PROTECT-IP. Among other infirmities, it would:

• Redefine the standard for copyright infringement on the Internet, changing the definition of
inducement in a way that would not only conflict with Supreme Court precedent but would make
YouTube, Google, and numerous other web sites liable for copyright infringement.
• Allow the government to block Internet access to any web site that "facilitated" copyright or
trademark infringement - a term that the Department of Justice currently interprets to require
nothing more than having a link on a web page to another site that turns out to be infringing.
• Allow any private copyright or trademark owner to interfere with the ability of web sites to host
advertising or charge purchases to credit cards, putting enormous obstacles in the path of electronic
commerce.

Most significantly, it would do all of the above while violating our core tenets of due process. By failing to
guarantee the challenged web sites notice or an opportunity to be heard in court before their sites are shut
down, SOPA represents the most ill-advised and destructive intellectual property legislation in recent
memory.

In sum, SOPA is a dangerous bill. It threatens the most vibrant sector of our economy - Internet
commerce. It is directly at odds with the United States' foreign policy of Internet openness, a fact that
repressive regimes will seize upon to justify their censorship of the Internet. And it violates the First
Amendment.

We hope you will review the attached letter, signed by many of the most prominent law professors
in the country, and register your concerns about SOPA.

Very truly yours.

Professor Mark A. Lemley


Stanford Law School

Professor David S. Levine


Elon University School of Law

Professor David Post


Temple University School of Law
KD-006

Professors' Letter in Opposition to "Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic


Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011"
(PROTECT-IP Act of 2011, S. 968)

July 5, 2011

To Members of the United States Congress:


The undersigned are 110 professors from 31 states, the District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico who teach and write about intellectual property, Internet law, innovation,
and the First Amendment. We strongly urge the members of Congress to reject the
PROTECT-IP Act (the "Act"). Although the problems the Act attempts to address -
online copyright and trademark infringement - are serious ones presenting new and
difficult enforcement challenges, the approach taken in the Act has grave constitutional
infirmities, potentially dangerous consequences for the stability and security of the
Internet's addressing system, and will undermine United States foreign policy and
strong support of free expression on the Internet around the world.
The Act would allow the government to break the Internet addressing system. It
requires Internet service providers, and operators of Internet name servers, to refuse to
recognize Internet domains that a court considers "dedicated to infringing activities."
But rather than wait until a Web site is actually judged infringing before imposing the
equivalent of an Internet death penalty, the Act would allow courts to order any
Internet service provider to stop recognizing the site even on a temporary restraining
order or preliminary injimction issued the same day the complaint is filed. Courts
could issue such an order even if the owner of that domain name was never given
notice that a case against it had been filed at all.
The Act goes still further. It requires credit card providers, advertisers, and
search engines to refuse to deal with the owners of such sites. For example, search
KD-007

engines are required to "(i) remove or disable access to the Internet site associated with
the domain name set forth in the court order; or (ii) not serve a hypertext link to such
Internet site." In the case of credit card companies and advertisers, they must stop
doing business not only with sites the government has chosen to sue but any site that a
private copyright or trademark owner claims is predominantly infringing. Giving this
enormous new power not just to the government but to any copyright and trademark
owner would not only disrupt the operations of the allegedly infringing web site
without a final judgment of wrongdoing, but would make it extraordinarily difficult for
advertisers and credit card companies to do business on the Internet.

Remarkably, the bill applies to domain names outside the United States, even if
they are registered not in the .com but, say, the .uk or .fr domains. It even applies to
sites that have no connection with the United States at all, so long as they allegedly
"harm holders" of US intellectual property rights.

The proposed Act has three major problems that require its rejection:

1. Suppressing speech without notice and a proper hearing: The Supreme

Court has made it abundantly clear that governmental action to suppress speech taken
prior to "a prompt final judicial decision ... in an adversary proceeding" that the speech is
unlawful is a presumptively unconstitutional "prior restraint,"^ the "most serious and

^ Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, 58-60 (U.S. 1965) (statute requiring theater owner to receive a
license before exhibiting allegedly obscene film was unconstitutional because the statute did not
"assure a prompt final judicial decision" that the film was obscene); see also Bantam Books v. Sullivan,
372 U.S. 58 (1962) (State Commission's letters suggesting removal of books already in circulation is a
"prior administrative restraint" and unconstitutional because there was no procedure for "an almost
immediate judicial determination of the validity of the restraint"); Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana,
489 U.S. 46, 51-63 (1989) (procedure allowing courts to order pre-trial seizure of allegedly obscene films
based upon a finding of probable cause was an unconstitutional prior restraint; publications "may not be
taken out of circulation completely until there has been a determination of [unlawful speech] after an
adversary hearing."). See also Center For Democracy & Technology v. Pappert, 337 F. Supp. 2d 606, 651
(E.D. Pa. 2004) (statute blocking access to particular domain names and IP addresses an unconstitutional
prior restraint).
KD-008

the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights/'^ permissible only in the
narrowest range of circumstances. The Constitution "require[s] a court, before material
is completely removed from circulation,... to make a final determination that material is
[unlawful] after an adversary hearing."^
The Act fails this Constitutional test. It authorizes courts to take websites "out of
circulation" - to make them imreachable by and invisible to Internet users in the United
States and abroad — immediately upon application by the Attorney General after an ex
parte hearing. No provision is made for any review of a judge's ex parte determination,
let alone for a "prompt and final judicial determination, after an adversary proceeding,"
that the website in question contains unlawful material. This falls far short of what the
Constitution requires before speech can be eliminated from public circulation.^
2. Breaking the Internet's infrastructure: If the government uses the power to
demand that individual Internet service providers make individual, country-specific
decisions about who can find what on the Internet, the interconnection principle at the

^ Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 559 (1976).


^ CDT V. Pappert, 337 F.Supp.2d, at 657 (emphasis added).
'^he Act would also suppress vast amounts of protected speech containing no infringing content
whatsoever, and is unconstitutional on that ground as well. The current architecture of the Internet
permits large numbers of independent individual websites to operate under a single domain name by
the use of unique sub-domains; indeed, many web hosting services operate hundreds or thousands of
websites under a single domain name (e.g., www.aol.com,www.terra.es,www.blogspot.com). By
requiring suppression of all sub-domains associated with a single offending domain name, the Act
"burns down the house to roast the pig," ACLU v. Reno, 521 U.S. 844, 882 (1997), failing the
fundamental requirement imposed by the First Amendment that it implement the “least restrictive
means of advancing a compelling state interest." ACLU v. Ashcroft, 322 F.3d 240, 251 (3d Cir. 2003)
(quoting SoWe Common, v. FCC, 492 U.S. at 126 (emphasis added)); cf O'Brien, 391 U.S. at 377 (even the
lower "intermediate scrutiny" standard requires that any "incidental restriction on First Amendment
freedoms ... be no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest"); see also CDT v Pappert,
337 F.Supp.2d, at 649 (domain name blocking ["DNS filtering"] resulted in unconstitutional
"overblocking" of protected speech whenever "the method is used to block a web site on an online
community or a Web Hosting Service, or a web host that hosts web sites as sub-pages under a single
domain name," and noting that one service provider "blocked hundreds of thousands of web sites
unrelated to" the targeted unlawful conduct); see also id., at 640 (statute resulted in blocking fewer
than 400 websites containing unlawful child pornography but in excess of one million websites without
any unlawful material).
KD-009

very heart of the Internet is at risk. The Intemef s Domain Name System ("DNS") is a
foundational building block upon which the Internet has been built and on which its
continued functioning critically depends. The Act will have potentially catastrophic
consequences for the stability and security of the DNS. By authorizing courts to order
the removal or replacement of database entries from domain name servers and domain
name registries, the Act imdermines the principle of domain name universality - that all
domain name servers, wherever they may be located on the network, will return the
same answer when queried with respect to the Internet address of any specific domain
name - on which countless numbers of Internet applications, at present, are based.
Even more troubling, the Act will critically subvert efforts currently underway - and
strongly supported by the U.S. government - to build more robust security protections
into the DNS protocols; in the words of a number of leading technology experts, several
of whom have been intimately involved in the creation and continued evolution of the
DNS for decades;

The DNS is central to the operation, usability, and scalability of the Internet;
almost every other protocol relies on DNS resolution to operate correctly. It is
among a handful of protocols that that are the core upon which the Internet is
built. ... Mandated DNS filtering [as authorized by the Act] would be minimally
effective and would present technical challenges that could frustrate important
security initiatives. Additionally, it would promote development of techniques
and software that circumvent use of the DNS. These actions would threaten the
DNS's ability to provide universal naming, a primary source of the Internet's
value as a single, unified, global communications network. . . . PROTECT IP's
DNS filtering will be evaded through trivial and often automated changes
through easily accessible and installed software plugins. Given this strong
potential for evasion, the long-term benefits of using mandated DNS filtering to
combat infringement seem modest at best.®

^ Crocker, et al., "Security and Other Technical Concerns Raised by the DNS Filtering Requirements in the
PROTECT IP Bill," available at http://www.circleid.com/pdf/PROTECT-IP-Technical-Whitepaper-
Final.pdf. The authors describe in detail how implementation of the Act's mandatory DNS filtering
scheme will conflict with and undermine development of the "DNS Security Extensions," a "critical set of
KD-010

Moreover, the practical effect of the Act would be to kill innovation by new
technology companies in the media space. Anyone who starts such a company is at risk
of having their source of customers and revenue - indeed, their website itself -­
disappear at a moment's notice. The Act's draconian obligations foisted on Internet
service providers, financial services firms, advertisers, and search engines, which will
have to consult an ever-growing list of prohibited sites they are not allowed to connect
to or do business with, will further hamper the Internet's operations and effectiveness.

3. Undermining United States' leadership in supporting and defending free


speech and the free exchange of information on the Internet: The Act represents a

retreat from the United States' strong support of freedom of expression and the free
exchange of information and ideas on the Internet. At a time when many foreign
governments have dramatically stepped up their efforts to censor Internet
communications,® the Act would incorporate into U.S. law - for the first time - a

security updates" for the DNS under development (with the strong support of both the U.S. government
and private industry) since the mid-1990s.

® Secretary of State Clinton, in her "Remarks on Internet Freedom" delivered earlier this year, put it this
way:

In the last year, we've seen a spike in threats to the free flow of information. China, Tunisia, and
Uzbekistan have stepped up their censorship of the internet. In Vietnam, access to popular
social networking sites has suddenly disappeared. And last Friday in Egypt, 30 bloggers and
activists were detained. ... As I speak to you today, government censors somewhere are
working furiously to erase my words from the records of history. But history itself has already
condemned these tactics.

[T]he new iconic infrastructure of our age is the Internet. Instead of division, it stands for
connection. But even as networks spread to nations around the globe, virtual walls are cropping
up in place of visible walls. . . . Some countries have erected electronic barriers that prevent
their people from accessing portions of the world's networks. They've expunged words, names,
and phrases from search engine results. They have violated the privacy of citizens who engage in
non-violent political speech. . . . With the spread of these restrictive practices, a new
information curtain is descending across much of the world.
KD-011

principle more closely associated with those repressive regimes: a right to insist on the
removal of content from the global Internet, regardless of where it may have originated
or be located, in service of the exigencies of domestic law. China, for example, has
(justly) been criticized for blocking free access to the Internet with its Great Firewall.
But even China doesn't demand that search engines outside China refuse to index or
link to other Web sites outside China. The Act does just that.

The United States has been the world's leader, not just in word but in deed, in
codifying these principles of speech and exchange of information. Requiring Internet
service providers, website operators, search engine providers, credit card companies
and other financial intermediaries, and Internet advertisers to block access to websites
because of their content would constitute a dramatic retreat from the United States'
long-standing policy, implemented in section 230 of the Communications Decency Act,
section 512 of the Copyright Act, and elsewhere, of allowing Internet intermediaries to
focus on empowering communications by and among users, free from the need to
monitor, supervise, or play any other gatekeeping or policing role with respect to those
commimications. These laws represent the hallmark of United States leadership in
defending speech and their protections are significantly responsible for making the
Internet into the revolutionary communications medium that it is today. They reflect a
policy that has not only helped make the United States the world leader in a wide range
of Internet-related industries, but it has also enabled the Internet's uniquely
decentralized structure to serve as a global platform for innovation, speech,
collaboration, civic engagement, and economic growth. The Act would undermine that
leadership and dramatically diminish the Internet's capability to be a functioning
commimications medium. In conclusion, passage of the Act will compromise our
ability to defend the principle of the single global Internet - the Internet that looks the
KD-012

same to, and allows free and unfettered communication between, users located in
Boston and Bucharest, free of locally-imposed censorship regimes. As such, it may
represent the biggest threat to the Internet in its history.

While copyright infringement on the Internet is a very real problem, copyright


owners already have an ample array of tools at their disposal to deal with the problem.
We shouldn't add the power to break the Internet to that list.

Signed,^

Professor John R. Allison


McCombs School of Business
University of Texas at Austin

Professor Brook K. Baker


Northeastern University School of Law

Professor Derek E. Bambauer


Brooklyn Law School

Professor Margreth Barrett


Hastings College of Law
University of California-San Francisco

Professor Mark Bartholomew


University at Buffalo Law School

Professor Ann M. Bartow


Pace Law School

Professor Marsha Baum


University of New Mexico School of Law

Professor Yochai Benkler


Harvard Law School

^ All institutions are listed for identification purposes only.


KD-013

Professor Oren Bracha


University of Texas School of Law

Professor Annemarie Bridy


University of Idaho College of Law

Professor Dan L. Burk


University of Califomia-Irvine School of Law

Professor Irene Calboli


Marquette University School of Law

Professor Adam Candeub


Michigan State University College of Law

Professor Michael Carrier


Rutgers Law School - Camden

Professor Michael W. Carroll


Washington College of Law
American University

Professor Brian W. Carver


School of Information
University of California-Berkeley

Professor Anupam Chander


University of California-Davis School of Law

Professor Andrew Chin


University of North Carolina School of Law

Professor Ralph D. Clifford


University of Massachusetts School of Law

Professor Julie E. Cohen


Georgetown University Law Center

Professor G. Marcus Cole


Stanford Law School
KD-014

Professor Kevin Collins


Washington University-St. Louis School of Law

Professor Danielle M. Conway


University of Hawai'i Richardson School of Law

Professor Dennis S. Corgill


St. Thomas University School of Law

Professor Christopher A. Cotropia


University of Richmond School of Law

Professor Thomas Cotter


University of Minnesota School of Law

Professor Julie Cromer Yotmg


Thomas Jefferson School of Law

Professor Ben Depoorter


Hastings College of Law
University of California - San Francisco

Professor Eric B. Easton


University of Baltimore School of Law

Anthony Falzone
Director, Fair Use Project
Stanford Law School

Professor Nita Farahany


Vanderbilt Law School

Professor Thomas G. Field, Jr.


University of New Hampshire School of Law

Professor Sean Flynn


Washington College of Law
American University
KD-015

Professor Brett M. Frischmann


Cardozo Law School
Yeshiva University

Professor Jeanne C. Fromer


Fordham Law School

Professor William T. Gallagher


Golden Gate University School of Law

Professor Laura N. Gasaway


University of North Carolina School of Law

Professor Deborah Gerhardt


University of North Carolina School of Law

Professor Llew Gibbons


University of Toledo College of Law

Professor Eric Goldman


Santa Clara University School of Law

Professor Marc Greenberg


Golden Gate University School of Law

Professor James Grimmelman


New York Law School

Professor Leah Chan Grinvald


St. Louis University School of Law

Professor Richard Gruner


John Marshall Law School

Professor Bronwyn H. Hall


Haas School of Business
University of California at Berkeley
KD-016

Professor Robert A. Heverly


Albany Law School
Union University

Professor Laura A. Heymann


Marshall-Wythe School of Law
College of William & Mary

Professor Herbert Hovenkamp


University of Iowa College of Law

Professor Dan Hunter


New York Law School

Professor David R. Johnson


New York Law School

Professor Faye E. Jones


Florida State University College of Law

Professor Amy Kapcz5mski


University of California-Berkeley Law School

Professor Dennis S. Karjala


Arizona State University College of Law

Professor Anne Klinefelter


University of North Carolina College of Law

Professor Mary LaFrance


William Boyd Law School
University of Nevada - Las Vegas

Professor Amy L. Landers


McGeorge Law School
University of the Pacific

Professor Mark Lemley


Stanford Law School
KD-017

Professor Lawrence Lessig


Harvard Law School

Professor David S. Levine


Elon University School of Law

Professor Yvette Joy Liebesman


St. Louis University School of Law

Professor Peter Linzer


University of Houston Law Center

Professor Lydia Pallas Loren


Lewis & Clark Law School

Professor Michael J. Madison


University of Pittsburgh School of Law

Professor Gregory P. Magarian


Washington University-St. Louis School of Law

Professor Phil Malone


Harvard Law School

Professor Christian E. Mammen


Hastings College of Law
University of California-San Francisco

Professor Jonathan Masur


University of Chicago Law School

Professor Andrea Matwysh)m


Wharton School of Business
University of Pennsylvania
Professor J. Thomas McCarthy
University of San Francisco School of Law

Professor William McGeveran


University of Minnesota Law School
KD-018

Professor Stephen Mcjohn


Suffolk University Law School

Professor Mark P. McKenna


Notre Dame Law School

Professor Hiram Melendez-Juarbe


University of Puerto Rico School of Law

Professor Viva Moffat


University of Denver College of Law

Professor Ira Nathenson


St. Thomas University School of Law

Professor Tyler T. Ochoa


Santa Clara University School of Law

Professor David S. Olson


Boston College Law School

Professor Barak Y. Orbach


University of Arizona College of Law

Professor Kristen Osenga


University of Richmond School of Law

Professor Frank Pasquale


Seton Hall Law School

Professor Aaron Perzanowski


Wayne State University Law School

Malla Pollack
Co-author, Callman on Trademarks, Unfair Competition, and Monopolies

Professor David G. Post


Temple University School of Law

Professor Connie Davis Powell


KD-019

Baylor University School of Law

Professor Margaret Jane Radin


University of Michigan Law School

Professor Glenn Reynolds


University of Tennessee Law School

Professor David A. Rice


Roger Williams University School of Law

Professor Neil Richards


Washington University-St. Louis School of Law

Professor Michael Risch


Villanova Law School

Professor Betsy Rosenblatt


Whittier Law School

Professor Matthew Sag


Loyola University-Chicago School of Law

Professor Pamela Samuelson


University of California-Berkeley Law School

Professor Sharon K. Sandeen


Hamline University School of Law

Professor Jason M. Schultz


UC Berkeley Law School

Professor Jeremy Sheff


St. John's University School of Law

Professor Jessica Silbey


Suffolk University Law School

Professor Brenda M. Simon


Thomas Jefferson School of Law
KD-020

Professor David E. Sorkin


John Marshall Law School

Professor Christopher Jon Sprigman


University of Virginia School of Law

Professor Katherine J. Strandburg


NYU Law School

Professor Madhavi Sunder


University of California-Davis School of Law

Professor Rebecca Tushnet


Georgetown University Law Center

Professor Deborah Tussey


Oklahoma City University School of Law

Professor Barbara van Schewick


Stanford Law School

Professor Eugene Volokh


UCLA School of Law

Professor Sarah K. Wiant


William & Mary Law School

Professor Darryl C. Wilson


Stetson University College of Law

Professor Jane K. Winn


University of Washington School of Law

Professor Peter K. Yu
Drake University Law School

Professor Tim Zick


William & Mary Law
KD-021
httpi/y'vvVvT-v.iopastrike.com/number:/
p- 0 SOPA STFUKE Largest onli...

IN NUMBERS AND SCREESHOTS

r'^i

10,000,000
PETITION SIGNATURES
Through Free Press, Don't Censor the Net, Avaaz, Credo and MoveOn

OVER 8,000,000
CALLS ATTEMPTED
Through nthipedio's call look up tool and hundreds of thousands morefrom partner sites

OVER 4,000,000 a
EMAILS SENT
Through EFF, FFTF and Demand Progress, Wikipedia wasn’t even counting

115,000+
SITES PARTICIPATED IN THE STRIKE
45,000 on Wprdpress.cOTn alone, many mor^r not recorded

ALMOST 1,000,000,000
PEOPLE WERE BLOCKED FROM WEBSITES

rTWITTER STATS*
KD-022
M of Ittk VeAnejJq<i, bt-foft ye.»l C■el^3^■ ^ork^l^^ jas cVcftctnitil

2,200,000 ■•^sofa
411,000 »i>vpa

105,000 wik.«pe.ii»a
159,000 ' si-ofsopa

52,000 =^5opa5+r'ik.t
17,000 *sopablack.c>at

9,000 ’^biaKou+sopa

5<Hxfsrj riFA
amtotanJaj
ac.Tttorsb\p
A
lU, soil No^n.aoii SoTft 3^an U, 3013.

^fm Tan 1^, 501^

AAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAA*

*10 OF THESE ARE SOLID, WE NEED TO KEEP PUSHING

OUR FAVORITE PROTESTERS


F
1 Imagine a World

ixrz Without Free Knowledge


KD-023
> over a decade, we have spent millions of hours buildiag
largest encyclopedia in human history. Right now, the
. Congress is censtderiog legislation that could fually
damage *e free and open interneL For 24 houra» to mbe
awareness, we are blocking out Wikipedia. Leam more.
WiK
CMUct your representatives.

Li Wikipedia

REDOn IS DOWN

SOPA and PIPA damage WordPress.


today we fight back.
Dearreddlt.

Today, (or 12 hours, raddtt.com goos darlf to raise awareness of two bills In
congress: H.R.3261 'Stop Online Piracy AcT and S.gSB'PROTlCT IP*, : iternet
which could radically cha^ the landsc^ of the Internet. These bills
provide overly broad mechanisms for enforcement of copyright which
would restrict innoyatlon and threaten the existence of websites with user-
submitted content, such as raddit.

Please take today as a day of focus and action to learn about these
destructive bills and do what you can to prevent them from becoming
reality.

Reddit

Google End Piracy, Not Liberty

I
^o^Tle
Mort about SOPA and PIPA
Community

More about SOPA and PIPA Videos

M«fr>ben of Conpm ar» trying to do the rifht thing by going aftn- pirat b and Prolact laAct Break^^ Internet
coLjnt«rf*rt«fs bur SOPA and PtPA art the wrong way :o do ii.
R trtOh'1 n«fk,
rtmlmilw^rwtwani
1, SOPA and PIPA would censor the Web ^ VtdilMdlfaMWlMIMitL
V ^PBjMTCiTlwUlMtbllkaVif
The U.S. government could order the blocJimg of shB using methods Similar to
* ^^^Partertarmant ndixtry,..
those employed by Chms. Among other things, search engines could be forced
lo delete entire vwbsiies from their search reSuhS-That^ why 41 human rights
organiutionsand no prominent kiw professors have expressed grave
PROTECT-
concerm about the bills

Z SOPA and PIPA would be job-killers because they would


create a new era of uncertainty for American butiness

Law abiding US. inlemet companin would havelo monitor everything men
knV to or upload or ^ce th« nsk of (Ime-consumirtg litigation. That^ why AOU
EBay, raceboek, Google, Linkedln, Metifla, Tviiiter. Yahoo and Zynga wrotea
letter to Congress saying these bils "pose a senous risk to our industry’s
cominued track record of innovation and Jo b<reai ion.'Ii’s also why SSef
Amenta's mos: successfulventurecapitaiistsexpressed concemthat PIPA
KD-024

NYC Protest

WORDPRESS.ORG PROTESTS
THE PROTECT IP ACT
Mu7 wcMtH m blKtodouttod«yto pntwt giimwed kgMiboD that thTHteu bteniet
freedoRLOkeStopIatefnel Pincy Act (SOPA) aad ^ ProtMl IP Act CPtPA). Prcm penooiJ blogt to
Wildpcdia.nteill
frxHD bdD» puHd. incuo witx^ Ibc video b«km t0 UwD how thk tegahtknt wm
attnet Fitedon, tbea mtoI] down to ulcc Mtion.

LEARN MORE
‘ t
»

Wordpress

petergabriel.com iREAL'iOHI-DlOl
T. Mrtiti

This year is going to be a very crueial year for the fate of digital rights and freedoms on the
internet. We strongly support the campaign against both the Protect IP Act and the Stop Online
Piracy Act. For that reason our website will be down today in support of the campaign.
“Please check out http://www.avaaz.org/en/save the internet/if you want to read more/sign the
petition.

Thank you."
Peter Gabriel

Peter Gabriel

and
KITTEN BBQ
KD-025

OatMeal

1
r
SAVETH[ INTERNET
□ Black out my blogs for the rest of the day to protest PIPA.
You can toggle this on your blog's Senings page.

Thanks to action by a broad and bipartisan coairtion of Intsfriet users, companies, and

inlerrtioned bu1 deeply flawed bill that would use Internet censorship to combat overseas

But nevertheless, the Senate is continuing to move forward — and fast ■ with Its equally
dangerous version of the bill, called PIPA. the Protect-IP Act. As written, PIPA would import
censorship and surveillance techniques pioneered by countries like China and Iran, reversing
longstanding U.S. policy on Internet freedom, betraying U.S. First Amendment values,
Kamaninn m tr etanHirwi ai irtrl tKa utrsrIH tKraataninn rti ir inK-/'roatinn inrv%tratnra anrl

TumbLr

HANDS OFF THE INTERNET!


r
k I mDGCKPOBT
h
DrudgeReport

STOP SOPA / PIPA


KD-026
Congresswoman Anna Eshoo

““'““•““E!! I □ E Q Don't Censor the Web.


Tdi Congress Noon SOPAard PiPA Gooj

Censoring Wired

Al W red

Don't Censo
the Web.
Tell Congress No on SOPA and P

Wired

503: Service Unavailable


Bo^ Boing is offline today, because the US Senate Is considering legMalion that
would certainly kill uS forever. The legislaBon is called the PnOflECXT IP Act (PIPA),
and would put us In legal jeopardy if we linked to a site anywhere online that had any
Hnks to copyright infringamant

This would unmake the Web, just as proposed In the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA).

more information on this btkI other issues central to your treodom online.
Thanks,
ThaBoingsrs

BoingBoing

Today, the Internet learned to defend itself.


We could still lose... But things will never be the same.

REMEMBER!
THE SENATE RETURNS MONDAY TO VOTE ON PIPA

Senators need to be called every day


that week until they vote no on cloture.

SENATE SWITCHBOARD:
(202) 224-3121

• OetoToPiPMII »QtWlflwiW* »OelATdiirMM sOpleVpwMIk J Od 14 roiPV«i« JOp|pT«err^i


«UmIY<uS«iM ■UMiVeurSnM rtUMVoaSmlan kiM Yqu> SanMan Uari Y«u S«fcn
2rr<ii .

•tkatatBssMa <rOB^tp«t<A «QotoP (to Id traarMi


■ •hteVwfa-M eWMYwftmn nWMVayrB*^ °MM(YaiirSM..
KD-027
*Ogi •OouTwt^ OobTomM*
*MWHl
• Um'trnrl
lYMl Strltei! • IMiVh qU^VwI *Uiitvuapw...
■ Qa(

•QstoTopnMi
iVwi *0»lo1«prt«L ^Vitl
*wm

•pb» *Prw, *pi*r •Pn»

dU, jit He FttUte.


FIGHTFORTHEFUTURE.ORG / AMERICANCENSORSHIP.ORG / SOPASTRIKE.COM

Designed by Ivan Tohnadrev - dribbble.cam/itolrnach


KD-028

B httpi;//petition:,whitehouse,gov/response/combating-online P fl 0 Combating Online Piracy... x|

the WHITE HOUSE puESiuEi^-iiAitACtc obama Contact Us ^ Get EmajI Updates ^

BRIEFING ROOM ISSUES THE ADMINISTRATION PARTICIPATE 1600 PENN


Q.

Help make We the People even better.


Share your feedback on how this new
platform can improve.
YOUR VOICE IN OUR GOVERNMENT
PEOPLE Share Your Feedback Q

^ CREATE A PETITION OPEN PETITIONS RESPONSES HOW & WHY Log in | Create an Account

Helpful Hints
OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE RESFONSE TO
VETO the SOPA bill and any other future bills that threaten to diminish the free flow of
Information and 1 other petition Creating a duplicate or similar petition
will make it harder for you to get an
This response was published on January 13, 2012. official response. Instead, sign and
help promote the one that has already
Combating Online Piracy while Protecting an Open and been created.

Innovative Internet Recent Petitions

By Victoria Espinel, Aneesh Chopra, and Howard Schmidt Recent Responses

Thanks for taking the time to sign this petition. Both your words and actions illustrate the importance of
CREATE A PETITION
maintaining an open and democratic Internet

Right now. Congress is debating a few pieces of legislation concerning the very real issue of online
piracy, including the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), the PROTECT IP Act and the Online Protection and
Digital ENforcement Act (OPEN). We want to take this opportunity to tell you what the Administration will
support—and whal we will not support. Any effective legislation should reflect a wide range of
stakeholders, including everyone from content creators to the engineers that build and maintain the
Infrastructure of the Internet. CREATE A PETITION

While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious
legislative response, we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, Increases
cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet.

Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful
activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small. Across the
globe, the openness of the Internet is increasingly central to innovation in business, government, and
society and it must be protected. To minimize this risk, new legislation must be nanowly targeted only at CREATE A PETITION
sites beyond the reach of current U.S. law. cover activity clearly prohibited under existing U.S. laws, and
be effectively tailored, with strong due process and focused on criminal aclivity. Any provision covering
Internet inlermedianes such as online advertising networks, payment processors, or search engines
must be transparent and designed to prevent overly broad private nghts of action that could encourage
unjustified litigation that could discourage startup businesses and innovative firms from growing.

We must avoid creating new cybersecurity risks or disrupting the underlying architecture of the
Internet. Proposed laws must not tamper with the technical architecture of the Internet through
CREATE A PETITION
manipulation of the Domain Name System (DNS), a foundation of Internet security. Our analysis of the
DNS filtering provisions in some proposed legislation suggests that they pose a real risk to cybersecurity
and yet leave contraband goods and services accessible online We must avoid legislation thal drives
users to dangerous, unreliable DNS servers and puts next-generation security policies, such as the
deployment of DNSSEC, at risk

Let us be clear—online piracy is a real problem that harms the American economy, and threatens jobs
for significant numbers of middle class workers and hurts some of our nation's most creative and
innovative companies and entrepreneurs It harms everyone from struggling artists to production crews, CREATE A PETITION

and from startup social media companies to large movie studios. While we are strongly committed to the
vigorous enforcement of intellectual property rights, existing tools are not strong enough to root out the
worst online pirates beyond our borders. That is why the Administration calis on ali sides to work
together to pass sound legislation this year that provides prosecutors and rights holders new
legal tools to combat online piracy originating beyond U.S. borders while slaying true to the
principles outlined above in this response. We should never let criminals hide behind a hollow embrace
of legitimate American values.
CREATE A PETITION
This is not just a matter for legislalion. We expect and encourage all private parties, including both
content creators and Internet platform providers working together, to adopt voluntary measures
and best practices to reduce online piracy.
KD-029
So, rather than just look at how legislation can be stopped, ask yourself: Where do we go from here?
Don't limit your opinion to what's the wrong thing to do, ask yourself what's right Already, many of
members of Congress are asking for public input around the issue. We are paying close attention to
those opportunities, as well as to public input to the Administration. The organizer of this petition and a
random sample of the signers will be invited to a conference call to discuss this issue turther with CREATE A PETITION

Administration officials and soon after that, we will host an online event to get more input and answer
your questions. Details on that will follow in the coming days.

Washington needs to hear your best Ideas about how to clamp down on rogue websites and other
criminals who make money oft the creative efforts of American artists and rights holders. We should all
be committed to working with all interested constituencies to develop new legal tools to protect global
intellectual property rights without jeopardizing the openness of the Internet. Our hope is that you will
bring enthusiasm and know-how to this important challenge.
CREATE A PETITION

Moving forward, we will continue to work with Congress on a bipartisan basis on legislation that provides
new tools needed in the global fight against piracy and counterfeiting, while vigorously defending an
open Internet based on the values of free expression, privacy, security and Innovation. Again, thank you
for taking the time to participate in this important process. We hope you’ll continue to be part of it.

Victoria Espinel is Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator el Office of Management and Budget

Aneesti Cftopra is the U.S. Chief Technology Officer and Assistant to the President and Associate
Director for Technology at the Office of Science and Technology Policy

Howard Schmidt is Special Assistant to the President and Cybersecurity Coordinator for National
Security Staff
KD-030
I g II B
http://wiAw.foHnews.cpm/pQlitics/2012/01ASp ^ ^ m EXCLUSIVE: Chris Dodd,.. X

Politics
EXECUTIVE

EXCLUSIVE: Chris Dodd warns of


Hollywood backlash against Obama
over anti-piracy biil
Published January 19, 2012 ■ FoxNews.com

! .

\\

iSPECIALi
f/fOX
^EV.S,
NEV' REPORT

NOW PLAYtNG + ra
Obama's Disney appearance in battleground state Fiorida

Hollywood’s top lobbyist and former Sen. Chris Dodd is threatening to cut off campaign funds to President
Obama's re-election effort because of anger over the White House appearing to side with tech companies in
a bitter fight over anti-piracy legislation.

In an exclusive interview with Fox News, Dodd fired off a warning to Obama - his former Senate Democratic
colleague in this election year - "don't take us for granted."

"Candidly, those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching
very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake," Dodd told Fox News. "Don't ask
me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my
job is at stake."

Dodd, who became CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America after leaving the Senate in 2011,
noted the movie "Avatar" was stolen by online pirates 21 million times. Such acts, he said, threaten to
KD-031
decimate his industry.

"You can complain and say, well, actors make a lot of money and they don't have to worry about this," said
Dodd. "You tell that to that camera guy, you tell that to that makeup artist, you tell that to that truck driver out
there who made, makes a living because they work in this industry."

"Avatar" was made by 20th Century Fox which, like Fox News Channel, is owned by NewsCorp. Rupert
Murdoch, chairman and CEO of NewsCorp, has also been outspoken in promoting two pieces of anti-piracy
legislation, the Stop Online Piracy Act and Protect IP Act, known respectively as "SOPA" and "PIPA," to
protect copyrighted material.

More on this...

* Feds say 7 behind celeb-endorsed Megaupload.com ran massive, worldwide piracy ring

Tech companies like Google charge that such a crackdown would result in censorship. Dodd said he was
caught off-guard when the White House released a written statement last Saturday sharing some of the tech
community's concerns about the legislation.

"I would caution people don't make the assumption that because the quote ’Hollywood community' has been
historically supportive of Democrats, which they have, don't make the false assumptions this year that
because we did it in years past, we will do it this year," said Dodd. "These issues before us - this is the only
issue that goes right to the heart of this industry."

Vice President Biden, in Reno, Nev. on Thursday, said that he met with tech officials Wednesday night and
was meeting Thursday evening with Hollywood studio chiefs to try and broker a legislation deal.

A White House official later told Fox News the vice president isn’t brokering a deal, suggesting Biden
misspoke.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney earlier this week stressed the administration did not take sides last
Saturday and is simply trying to find the right balance to come up with reform that both sides can live with.

"Our firm belief is that we need to do something about online piracy by foreign websites, but we need to do it
in a way that does not impinge upon a free and open Internet," Carney said.

Meanwhile, it’s unclear if Dodd will follow through on the threats — or whether it will matter. Hollywood has so
far ponied up over $4.1 million to the Obama re-election campaign. That's already higher than the $3.7
million it gave him in the 2008 campaign, according to Opensecrets.org. Several months remain for more
money to flow.

In addition, any lost Hollywood support could be made up with votes and dollars from the tech community,
which is lobbying the issue just as aggressively.

Fox News has learned from Democratic sources that several tech company officials attended a fundraiser for
the president in Washington last Friday, one day before the White House publicly expressed its concerns
about the proposed legislation that angered Hollywood so much.

While the fundraising event itself was on the president’s public schedule, details of who attended were not
released by the White House last Friday. Fox News on Thursday asked the Obama campaign to release the
names of attendees but so far that has not been done.
KD-032
An Obama campaign official did confirm "the event included both supporters who work for technology
companies and those who do not."

The campaign official said there was no connection between Friday's fundraiser and Saturday's
announcement on the legislation, and noted the president does not take money from federal lobbyists so
none was in attendance at the fundraiser. Other company officials for some of the tech companies, however,
were there.

The president's re-election team also notes it has a broad base of financial support, and does not seem to be
sweating any potential cutoff of more money than it's already received from Hollywood.

"This campaign is fueled by donations from more than 1.3 million Americans who come from different
backgrounds and might disagree on some issues but contribute to the campaign because they believe in the
president's vision to restore economic security for the middle class and to build an economy that rewards
hard work and responsibility," said the Obama campaign official.
KD-033

TRANSCRIPT OF A TELEPHONE CALL BETWEEN KIM DOTCOM AND THOMAS HART, JR.

Recording Number 1:

Kim Dotcom I will, I will watch the Obama

Thomas Hart Yeah.


Kim Dotcom Movie tomorrow.

Thomas Hart Watch that and then if you like it

Kim Dotcom Yeah

Thomas Hart Like he did, he, he, that was the first thing he said because the last time I
saw him I gave him another copy, he told me he had seen part of it before
but them Michelle took it from him and left it in their Chicago house because
she had some friends over and they watched it, and so when I gave him
another one he said he would watch it, sure enough he did and he
mentioned it to me, he said it was really good, and we’re updating it now.

Recording Number 2:

Kim Dotcom Now is it your, is your feeling and your understanding that there is a desire
for some sort of diplomatic solution after the election?

Thomas Hart Yes, yes, yes, that’s my feeling and that’s, that’s what, I actually think he
would, he didn’t say it but he’s aware of the problems, he doesn’t like to be
embarrassed, this has the potential to be an embarrassment to him whether
its, you know, in his first term or second term, he wants to start his second
term off better, that’s what he said, I want to start my second term off better
than I finished my first term. So.

Kim Dotcom [Laughter] That’s good.

Thomas Hart He, he, yeah and I think, you know, it would be just as well for him to clean
the slate on this and, and you know start anew. Now how that is done, you
know, I don’t know and it is a complicated procedure for, you know, various
reasons but I think he would welcome as I have articulated from the
beginning an industry solution that he could then, you know, endorse and
applaud rather than, you know, pursue this course for the next year or two,
it’s just it, you know, it’s not, it’s not, it’s not going to be worthwhile for, for
him or anyone else really at this point to just keep grinding the thing down.

Kim Dotcom Well sounds, sounds.

Thomas Hart So yeah, I, I, I do think he will do that.


KD-034

Kim Dotcom Sounds good Thomas, I think this is an interesting development, I’m happy
to hear that he is aware that things, you know, are not.

Thomas Hart Are not going, are not going as well as he expected, that, that was what he
is going to anticipate. I’m, I’m aware that, that this matter has not gone as
well as we expected. That was, you know, virtually a quote and that he’s
not going to do anything dramatically between now and November, but after
the election he will have meetings with all secretaries and, you know, be
more familiar with the matter and will be open to a solution at that time.

Kim Dotcom Yeah. Now let me ask you this, you know the understanding is that Biden
is the driver behind all of this, even if Mr O wants to change course wouldn’t
he need him to go along and be happy with it because, you know, I, I don’t
see him being reasonable because, you know, of his relationship with Dodd.
How important do you think

Thomas Hart Well, I, I, I, that’s why I think Dodd is key and, and you know, we’ve
discussed this privately and otherwise that, and, and, and you know, as
you’ve threw me under the bus by reporting, you know, Biden did admit to
have, have a, you know, kind of started it, you know, along with support
from others but it was Biden’s decision and he, he, you know.

Kim Dotcom Yeah I mean we, we, we, we know that but, you know, sometimes when
people, when people make

Thomas Hart Yeah but at this point to me

Kim Dotcom Yeah

Thomas Hart He did it as, you know, a favour and what, and also a, a consolation to the
lack of advancement in SOPA and, and they, they, they, they, I, I don’t think
the Vice President expected it to, to unravel the way it has either, I have not
spoken to him by the way, so understand.

Recording Number 3:

Thomas Hart I’ve heard this, you know, not only from the top guys but from other people
too that this is now, you know, it’s pretty much run its course and, and that
they stand more to, here it is, they stand more to lose than they do to gain
at this point, they’ve already gained what they wanted to which was to show
a strong arm and a commitment to enforcement but at this point the negative
feedback and repercussions both domestically and internationally could
very well be more costly than the effort that they have attempted to achieve
in the first place.
KD-035

Recording Number 4:

Kim Dotcom Thanks, thanks for telling me about what Mr O said, I think that’s.

Thomas Hart Mmm hmmmm.

Kim Dotcom That all sounds very promising, you know, I mean at least the.

Thomas Hart Its the process and it’s, it’s, it’s, you know, one step at a time but his attitude
was actually more conciliatory and more sort of open and, you know, while
he, you know, he’s questioning the whole thing frankly at this point.
[Inaudible]

Kim Dotcom Well I mean everyone with half a brain is questioning this whole thing, you
know, so I mean.

Thomas Hart Yeah.

Kim Dotcom I’m glad that, that he has reached that point and, you know.

Thomas Hart Mmm hmmmm.

Kim Dotcom I’m sure people are updating him about what’s happening.
KD-036

White House Visitor Records Requests


Based on White House Visitor Records Requests

BDGNB
NAMELAST NAMEFIRST NAMEMID UIN Type of Access TOA
R
MacBride Neil H U28172 86872 VA 7/20/2011 13:08

Page 1 of 6 Powered by socrata


KD-037

White House Visitor Records Requests


Based on White House Visitor Records Requests

POA TOD POD APPT MADE DATE APPT START DATE


D0101 07/19/2011 12:00:00 AM 7/20/2011 13:15

Page 2 of 6 Powered by socrata


KD-038

White House Visitor Records Requests


Based on White House Visitor Records Requests

APPT_CAN LAST_UPD POST


APPT END DATE TotaLPeople LastEntryDate
CEL DATE ATEDBY
7/20/2011 23:59 1 KS WIN 7/19/2011 16:17

Page 3 of 6 Powered by socrata


KD-039

White House Visitor Records Requests


Based on White House Visitor Records Requests

TERMINAL
visitee namelast visitee namefirst MEETING LOG
SUFFIX
KS Hoffman Alan WH

Page 4 of 6 Powered by socrata


KD-040

White House Visitor Records Requests


Based on White House Visitor Records Requests

MEETING ROOM CALLER NAME LAST CALLER NAME FIRST CALLER ROOM

WH Mess SEIGHMAN KATHLEEN

Page 5 of 6 Powered by socrata


KD-041

White House Visitor Records Requests


Based on White House Visitor Records Requests

RELEASE DA
Description
TE
10/28/2011
07:00:00 AM +0000

Page 6 of 6 Powered by socrata


KD-042

White House Visitor Records Requests


Based on White House Visitor Records Requests

BDGNB
NAM BLAST NAMEFIRST NAMEMID UIN Type of Access TOA
R
Blake Jeffery V U29594 79796 VA 7/27/2011 13:47

Dodd Christopher J U29594 87091 VA 7/27/2011 13:44

Ellis Michael C U29594 73104 VA 7/27/2011 13:47

Grey Brad A U29594 78258 VA 7/27/2011 13:48

Meyer Barry M U29594 83566 VA 7/27/2011 13:46

Meyer Ronald M U29594 79917 VA 7/27/2011 13:48

OLeary Michael P U29594 80146 VA 7/27/2011 13:46

Regan Robert M U29594 87260 VA 7/27/2011 13:45

Ross Richard S U29594 87127 VA 7/27/2011 13:45

Page 1 of 6 Powered by socrata


KD-043

White House Visitor Records Requests


Based on White House Visitor Records Requests

POA TOD POD APPT MADE DATE APPT START DATE

A0401 7/27/2011 18:29 A0401 07/25/2011 12:00:00 AM 7/27/2011 13:30

A0401 7/27/2011 18:30 A0401 07/25/2011 12:00:00 AM 7/27/2011 13:30

A0401 7/27/2011 18:35 A0401 07/25/2011 12:00:00 AM 7/27/2011 13:30

A0401 7/27/2011 18:29 A0401 07/25/2011 12:00:00 AM 7/27/2011 13:30

A0401 7/27/2011 18:29 A0401 07/25/2011 12:00:00 AM 7/27/2011 13:30

A0401 7/27/2011 18:31 A0401 07/25/2011 12:00:00 AM 7/27/2011 13:30

A0401 7/27/2011 18:29 A0401 07/25/2011 12:00:00 AM 7/27/2011 13:30

A0401 7/27/2011 18:29 A0401 07/27/2011 12:00:00 AM 7/27/2011 13:30

A0401 7/27/2011 15:35 A0401 07/25/2011 12:00:00 AM 7/27/2011 13:30

Page 2 of 6 Powered by socrata


KD-044

White House Visitor Records Requests


Based on White House Visitor Records Requests

APPT_CAN LAST_UPD POST


APPT END DATE TotaLPeople LastEntryDate
CEL DATE ATEDBY
7/27/2011 23:59 10 KS WIN 7/25/2011 11:34

7/27/2011 23:59 10 KS WIN 7/25/2011 11:34

7/27/2011 23:59 10 KS WIN 7/25/2011 11:34

7/27/2011 23:59 10 KS WIN 7/25/2011 11:34

7/27/2011 23:59 10 KS WIN 7/25/2011 11:34

7/27/2011 23:59 10 KS WIN 7/25/2011 11:34

7/27/2011 23:59 10 KS WIN 7/25/2011 11:34

7/27/2011 23:59 10 KS WIN 7/27/2011 9:21

7/27/2011 23:59 10 KS WIN 7/25/2011 11:34

Page 3 of 6 Powered by socrata


KD-045

White House Visitor Records Requests


Based on White House Visitor Records Requests

TERMINAL
visitee namelast visitee namefirst MEETING LOG
SUFFIX
KS VPOTUS WH

KS VPOTUS WH

KS VPOTUS WH

KS VPOTUS WH

KS VPOTUS WH

KS VPOTUS WH

KS VPOTUS WH

KS VPOTUS WH

KS VPOTUS WH

Page 4 of 6 Powered by socrata


KD-046

White House Visitor Records Requests


Based on White House Visitor Records Requests

MEETING ROOM CALLER NAME LAST CALLER NAME FIRST CALLER ROOM

WW SEIGHMAN KATHLEEN

WW SEIGHMAN KATHLEEN

WW SEIGHMAN KATHLEEN

WW SEIGHMAN KATHLEEN

WW SEIGHMAN KATHLEEN

WW SEIGHMAN KATHLEEN

WW SEIGHMAN KATHLEEN

WW SEIGHMAN KATHLEEN

WW SEIGHMAN KATHLEEN

Page 5 of 6 Powered by socrata


KD-047

White House Visitor Records Requests


Based on White House Visitor Records Requests

RELEASE DA
Description
TE
10/28/2011
07:00:00 AM +0000
10/28/2011
07:00:00 AM +0000
10/28/2011
07:00:00 AM +0000
10/28/2011
07:00:00 AM +0000
10/28/2011
07:00:00 AM +0000
10/28/2011
07:00:00 AM +0000
10/28/2011
07:00:00 AM +0000
10/28/2011
07:00:00 AM +0000
10/28/2011
07:00:00 AM +0000

Page 6 of 6 Powered by socrata


KD-048

White House Visitor Records Requests


Based on White House Visitor Records Requests

BDGNB
NAMELAST NAMEFIRST NAMEMID UIN Type of Access TOA
R
Dodd Christopher J U63134 87161 VA 12/9/2011 11:54

Page 1 of 6 Powered by socrata


KD-049

White House Visitor Records Requests


Based on White House Visitor Records Requests

POA TOD POD APPT MADE DATE APPT START DATE


A0401 12/9/2011 14:36 A0401 12/01/2011 12:00:00 AM 12/9/2011 12:00

Page 2 of 6 Powered by socrata


KD-050

White House Visitor Records Requests


Based on White House Visitor Records Requests

APPT_CAN LAST_UPD POST


APPT END DATE TotaLPeople LastEntryDate
CEL DATE ATEDBY
12/9/2011 23:59 1 AB WIN 12/1/2011 15:57

Page 3 of 6 Powered by socrata


KD-051

White House Visitor Records Requests


Based on White House Visitor Records Requests

TERMINAL
visitee namelast visitee namefirst MEETING LOG
SUFFIX
AB POTUS WH

Page 4 of 6 Powered by socrata


KD-052

White House Visitor Records Requests


Based on White House Visitor Records Requests

MEETING ROOM CALLER NAME LAST CALLER NAME FIRST CALLER ROOM

Oval Offic BRECKENRIDGE ANITA

Page 5 of 6 Powered by socrata


KD-053

White House Visitor Records Requests


Based on White House Visitor Records Requests

RELEASE DA
Description
TE
Private lunch meeting with President 03/30/2012
07:00:00 AM +0000
Obama

Page 6 of 6 Powered by socrata


KD-054
CEDCIDG
http://wim».davispolk.com/news/davis-pQl P - g | ^ Davis Polk Wdcomes Form... X

News I Resources | Events | B RSS | Contact Us

The Firm ■ Practices ■ Offices ■ Lawyers ■ Careers ■ Diversity ■ Pro Bono ■ Aiumni ■
Searcfi
a

Davis Polk <Back


PRINT i_j EMAIL

News Search:
Davis Polk Welcomes Former U.S. Attorney RELATED PRACTICES
Keyword
Neil MacBride □ Anti-Corruption and Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act
11/21/2013
□ Compiianceand Advisory
News type
Washington, DC, November 21,2013—Davis Poik & Wardwell LLP Q Congressionai investigations
ALL NEWS
today announces that Neil MacBride, former U.S. Attorney for the B Giobal Enforcementand
Practices Litigation
Eastern District of Virginia ("EDVA”), is joining the frm as a partner in
ALL PRACTICES its Washington DC office Mr MacBride served as U S Attorney for □ Litigation
Offices the EDVA Itiom 2009 to 2013. □ White Coiiar Criminai Defense
rALL OFEICES
Before his appointment as US. Attorney, Mr. MacBride served as
RELATED OFFICES
Date From Associate Deputy Attorney General at the Department of Justice in
□ Washington DC
200S. He also served as Chief Counsel and Staff Director for then-

Date To Senator Joseph R Biden, Jr ftom 2001 to 2005 on the Senate


FIND NEWS RELATED TO
Judiciary Committee. From 1997 to 2001, Mr. MacBride served as an
□ Are-Corruption and Foreign
assistant U S. Attorney in the District of Columbia. During his time as Corrupt Practices Act
Related Lawyer Last Name an assistant U S Attorney and as U.S. Attorney for EDVA, he
n Compiianceand Advisory
conducted more than 25 Jury trials.
B Cotrgressional Investigations
Mr. MacBride’s wide-ranging government and trial experience adds □ Global Enforcementand
Search Clear Lidgation
further depth and strength to one of the premier white collar criminal
defense and government investigations groups in the worid □ LiUgation
B White Collar Criminal Defense
“We are delighted to welcome Neil MacBride to the partnership for □ Washington DC
numerous reasons, among the most important of which are his
intellect, judgment and integrity," said Thomas J. Reid, Davis Polk’s
Managing Partner "Neil is a superb addition to our global
enforcement team and his experience will be invaluable in offering the
critical and decisive advice in New York and DC that great companies
have always called upon us to provide.”

Neil MacBride said, “Davis Polk is one of the world’s great law firms,
and one of the few remaining true and lockstep partnerships. Its white
collar and government investigations practice has long been one of the
most respected in the world. I am thrilled to be joining Davis Polk and
developing the fimn's increasingly important presence in the nation’s
capital and I look forward to working with my new partners in advising
our clients on their most difficult criminal, congressional and regulatory
problems."

Mr MacBride’s tenure as U S Attorney for the EDVA was universally


regarded as extremely successful. He led the office in bringing cases
of national and international significance, involving financial fraud,
international corruption, copyright infringement and trade secret theft,
defense procurement fraud, money laundering, terrorism and
cybersecurity. Some of the most signif cant matters during his tenure
involved the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the Securities Act of 1S33,
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Wire and Mail Fraud
statutes, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, the Arms Export Control Act, the False
Claims Act and the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Mr. MacBride also served as General Counsel of the Business


Software Alliance, an international trade association for the hardware
and software industry.

Mr. MacBride joins several other former government officials in Davis


Polk’s Washington office, including former Chairman of the Federal
Trade Commission Jon Leibowitz, former Deputy Director and Chief
Counsel of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's Division of
Trading and Markets Susan Ervin, former SEC Commissioner Annette
KD-055
Nazareth, former State Department official John Reynolds III, former
FTC General Counsel Michael Sohn, former SEC Enforcement
Director Linda Chatman Thomsen, and former White Flouse Staff
Secretary and Assistant to the President Fiaul Yanes

ABOUT DAVIS POLK.

Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP is a global law firm Eor more than 160
years, its lawyers have advised industry-leading companies and global
financial institutions on their most challenging legal and business
matters Davis Polk ranks among the world’s preeminent law firms
across the entire range of its practice, which spans such areas as
antitrust, mergers and acquisitions, capital markets, intellectual
property, litigation, private equity, ta>, financial regulation, investment
management, insolvency and restructuring, executive compensation,
real estate, technology, and trusts and estates Davis Polk has
approximately 900 lawyers in offices in New York, Menlo Park,
Washington DC, Sao Paulo, London, Paris, Madrid, Hong Kong,
Beijing and Tokyo For more information: http://www davispolk.com.

ABOUT DAVIS POLK’S WHITB COLLAR AND GOVERNMENT


INVESTIGATIONS PRACTICE.

Davis Polk is widely recognized as having one of the preeminent white


collar criminal defense and govemmenf investigations practices in the
worid. Davis Polk represents corporations and individuals from around
the worid in high-profile and complex white collar criminal defense
matters, regulatory enforcement matters and internal investigations
Our litigators include some of the most highly respected criminal
defense and enforcement lawyers in the country, many of whom
served with distinction as federal and state prosecutors or senior
ofiicials at the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

© 2015 Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP Disclaimer and Notices | Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
KD-056
I a II B r
r
http;//wm.opaniacrati,org/re¥i;l¥ing/re¥_sumrf P ^ cj | [-»- Revolving Door ChrisDod.,. X *

Rliko 1D6k|
Follow I <|53.3K followers I SIGN UP! ■ DONATE

ABOUT US LOG IN TO MYOPEN SECRETS

OpenSecrets.org
Center for Responsive Politics
Search OpenSecrets

POLITICIANS & ELECTIONS INFLUENCE & LOBBYING NEWS & ANALYSIS RESOURCES TAKE ACTION
I
Home / Influence & Lobbying / Revolving Door / Employment History E3 Share

Dodd, Chris

Search database by:

Motion Picture Assn of America Person 0


Former Member, US Senate
Enter at least 3 characters Q

ADVANCED SEARCH

Bio
The Revolving Door has pushed another lawmaker from the halls of power on Capitol Hill
to the board rooms of private industry, in this case, former Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) We follow the
wiii work as chief executive officer and chairman of the Motion Pictures Association of money. You make it
America. As the incoming CEO, Dodd wiii promote and expand the American motion
picture industry in foreign markets. Dodd wiii join the ranks of Jack Valenti, a former
possible.
special assistant to President Lyndon Johnson, and Dan Glickman, a former Kansas Thanks to support from individuats like
congressman and U.S. agriculture secretary, who both have previously occupied this yourself, our work makes possible the
position. The Motion Pictures Association is responsible for assigning film ratings for daily examination of the industries,
every movie that released in the United States, and it represents the interests of the six organizations and individuals trying to
largest Hollywood studios: Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group, Sony Pictures, influence the democratic process.
Paramount Pictures, 20th Century Fox, Universal Studios and Warner Brothers. Dodd
brings his lengthy tenure in public service to the association. His political career began in
1975 when he was elected to the House as part of the "Watergate class of 74," and he
Make a Donation Today
2
served there for two terms. By 1980, Dodd won a seat to the United States Senate and
was re-elected for five consecutive terms. During his time in office, he served as the
chairman of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee and was a member of Find Your Representatives
the Health, Labor and Pensions Committee. He also ran for president in 2006 but failed Street City, State Zip Code Q
to muster much support.

O Show More Information About Dodd, Chris


m
AMta

Employment Timeline

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020


GET 10 FREE
Motion Piclure Assn of Ametica ADOBE STOCK IMAGES.
US Senate
Offer ends 30 October.
Get started >
US House of Representatives

Dept of Army

Peace Corpa
D
KD-057

■ Lobbying Firm
□ Private Sector
□ Federal Govt
□ State/Local Govt

Employment History
Period Employer Title Additional Info

2011- Motion Picture Assn of Chairman Client lobbying profile


America
Revolving Door Personnel: (27)

1981- US Senate Member KB Agency lobbying profile


2010 Revolving Door Personnel: (135)

1975- US House of Member ■:b Agency lobbying profile


1981 Representatives
Revolving Door Personnel: (460)

1969- Dept of Army ■.■B Agency lobbying profile


1975 Revolving Door Personnel: (181)

1966- Peace Corps Volunteer ■.B Agency lobbying profile


1968 Revolving Door Personnel: (32) Dominican
Republic

Senate Banking, Housing ^ Cong Cmte profile


& Urban Affairs Committee
Revolving Door Personnel: (75)

Senate Foreign Relations i Cong Cmte profile


Committee
Revolving Door Personnel: (41)

Senate Health, Education, ^ Cong Cmte profile


Labor & Pensions
Committee
Revolving Door Personnel: (71)

Senate Rules & A. Cong Cmte profile


Administration Committee
Revolving Door Personnel: (32)

Joint Library of Congress ^ Cong Cmte profile


Committee
Revolving Door Personnel: (5)

Lobbying Firm Private Sector Federal Govt. • State/Local Govi.

For registered lobbyists, employment histories may be incomplete prior to 1998 because
the Senate Office of Public Records does not make registrations and reports available
electronically for those years.

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commerciai uses, such as
textbooks, contact the Center: info@crp.org

O < AppSKai^
Count Cash & Make Change.
Join our mailing list and get our weekly money-
in-politics newsletter.
OpenSecrets.org is your nonpartisan guide to money's influence on U.S.
KD-058
I' a II B |[~S
http://wivi».c:bsnavis,com/na»5/joe-biden-is-P t g Joe Biden is a Big Fan of Ch... X *S

CBS News I CBS Evening News / CBS Til is Morning I 48 Hours / 80 Minutes / Sunday Morning I Face TlieNaition / CBSN Log In Search Q

®cbsm:ws video US World Politics Entertainment Health MoneyWatch SciTech Crime Sports Photos More

By BRFAN MONTOPOLI CBS NEWS January 6,2010,5:42 PM

Joe Biden is a Big Fan of Chris


Comment . Shares Tweets Q Stumble @ Email Mofe +

Most Popular

10 cars you can keep for 10


01 years
120376 in'eius

Things Americans fear most


02 113134 uj'eius

Supplement use sends


(AP) 03 thousands to the ER each year
The Wliite House just released a comment from Vice President Joe Biden on Sen. 68232 uieuJS
Chris Dodd's retirement, and it is one of the most glowing statements we've seen
Cops: Woman staged videos to
come out of the Obama Wliite House.
04 hide her 5-year-old’s injuries
62137 views
"Senator Dodd is one of my best friends in hfe," opens the statement. ”... He's one
of the most skilled legislators I've ever served with." Charles Koch: I’m fighting

It only gets more laudatory from there.


05 against special interests
70609 views

”I beheve Chris will be long recognized as one of the most significant Senators of
my generation," Biden says. "...I believe the nation will miss his vdsdom, wit and Watch CBSN Live
compassion. I count myself lucky because I know he's not going too far and will
always he source of advice and counsel.”

We've posted the big, wet kiss of a statement in full below.

Joe Biden: Senator Dodd is one of my best friends in life. We served together in
the Senate for almost 30 years, and to every meeting, every hearing, every floor
debate, he brought a keen intellect and a deep understanding of the subject matter
on every issue. His knowledge and background in foreign policy are matched by
iS
Watch CBS News Live
few, and his expertise on matters relating to Latin and South America is respected
worldwide. He's one of the most skilled legislators I've ever served with. I doubt Watch CBS News anytime, anywhere
anyone else could have led two major committees simultaneously and had such an with the new 24/j digital news network.
impact on two of the most important issues facing us: health reform and restoring Stream CBSN live or on demandfor
economic stability. I believe Chris will be long recognized as one of the most FREE on your TV, computer, tablet, or
smartphone.
significant Senators of my generation. Every mother, every father, who has had to
KD-059
take medical leave to take care of a sick child or family member has Chris to thank.
Watch Now
His commitment to the children of this country can be best understood by the
landmark legislation he championed to protect their welfare. I believe the nation
will miss his wisdom, wit and compassion. I count myself lucky because I know
he's not going too far and wiU always be source of advice and counsel. Jill and I
wish Chris and Jackie the best as they move on to their next endeavors and know
the future holds only great things for their fanidy.
® 2010 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Comment Shares Tweets C Stumble @ Email More +

Brian Montopoli
ON TWITTER » ON FACEBOOK » ON GOOGLE+»
Brian Montopoli is tlie national reporter and political analyst for CBSNews.com.
KD-060

VIDEO STILL FROM VP JOE BIDEN ADDRESS TO MPAA CONFERENCE


VIDEO FILE IS LOCATED IN THE AV FILES FOLDER IN PART D - EXHIBITS
KD-061

<2i!l^PRINTTHIS
■V. j

IXTItNATrOKAl Powered by

fvlan on a mission: Across Asia-Pacific, the fVIPA's Mike Ellis pursues pirates and
politics
Nov 29, 2010
■By Andreas Fuchs

I ‘Customs campaign focuses on illegal import of pirated


DVDs into Taiwan.”

'«;a “Australian police conduct countrywide sweep against


copyright theft,” '

s "Man arrested for uploading movie files in Japan."


4
I “Zero tolerance for illegal camcording bites in Hong Kong's
cinemas.”

These are some recent media messages from Singapore,


Malaysia-headquartered Motion Picture Association International {wv'Av.mpa-i.org).

MPA International? What happened to the Motion Picture Association proper? “It’s no big intrigue," the
organization's Mike Ellis laughs. “The MPA is indeed the international arm of the Motion Picture Association of
America. The MPA-I was formed In Singapore, because we could not register the MPA there, as the name was
already claimed. So we had to form a new company." Thus, Ellis became president and managing director of the
Asia-Pacific Region for both the Motion Picture Association (MPA) and Motion Picture Association Internationai
(MPA-I).

Since 1999, Ellis has been “charged with combating piracy in the digital age," his job description states. He is
"liaising with government bodies and law-enforcement agencies worldwide while overseeing thousands of
investigations, raids and precedent-setting legal actions.” A litigation lawyer qualified in Hong Kong, England and
Wales, Ellis also draws from a two-decade-long career in iaw enforcement, serving first in the British Police and
then the Royal Hong Kong Police. At the latter, he spent six years with the Commercial Crime Bureau, ultimately
rising to superintendent and becoming aide-de-camp to the last Governor of Hong Kong,

Looking at yet another headline about an “illegal DVD factory uncovered by Thai police,” Film Journal International
wondered what type of mission Mike Ellis is actually on—as a lawyer, enforcer or diplomat? All of the above, he
confirmed on his way to attend several government meetings when we caught up with him. calling in from a taxi
dashing through Bangkok. (Great reception, by the way. Sadly, this author forgot to ask about his cell-phone
provider.)

“The focus has shifted more towards being an ambassador rather than the enforcer," Ellis adds, mentioning his
“very experienced team of competent people who are handling the enforcement side. Obviously, I still supervise
and manage that, but I do a lot more of the government liaison and outreach with local industry.”

For Ellis, the mission is also about creating awareness of "what the issues are. and trying to get atl parties to speak
in one common voice.” Those problems vary by country, he notes. "Among the top line Issues, however, is the
Internet problem of online infringement, which is major for all of us," he asserts. "That includes getting Internet
Service Providers to be more responsive to our problems and the camcording issue... The majority of the iliegal
files that initially get up on the Internet come from camcording in movie theatres. We are trying to have the
exhibitors work with us hand-in-hand to address the problem and stop it taking place at their cinemas.”

Regarding the legal side of enforcement and indictment, Ellis details, "Hong Kong was the first government to put in
place anti-camcording measures some ten years ago. We’ve got legislation now in Japan and tough legislation is
winding its way through the parliamentary systems in Thailand and Malaysia. The government of the Philippines
just passed legislation. In many places, like Australia and Singapore for instance, camcording is actually covered
already under the basic copyright law."
KD-062

The decade-ago adoption in Hong Kong may explain how “we stopped camcording coming out of Malaysia and
Hong Kong," Eliis suggests. “Both countries were places, just a few years ago, where we had huge problems,"
Another reason behind this "amazing success story," he says, is “our ability to have good dialogue and
conversation with the exhibitors. Those who have taken that situation really seriously and trained their staffs have
been very, very successful at catching people camcording. We’ve not had any forensic links to either Malaysia or
Hong Kong in the last two years. We are going to be driving that in other countries where we still have a problem.
Thailand is at the top of our list now, but we are also looking at emerging countries such as China and India, The
challenges are great. Often the films are not marked with the local industry and they are obviously very, very big
countries for trying to deal with those problems."

Access restrictions to such sizeable markets haven't eased up either. In China, “we still have the exact same
problem that not more than 20 revenue-sharing films for the whole of the international marketplace can get in. I am
absolutely blunt about this with the Chinese offcials I meet. Unless they address the market-access issue and
make our products available, they will not be able to deal with the piracy problems. It s just impossible. The
consumers want our content, but they just can’t get it legally. So this is a very tense situation. You can't deal with
piracy unless the products are legally available to the consumer. But the government restricts us making them
available.”

Does Ellis think continuing growth in cinema building will help achieve access? “In China we are looking at three
screens a day being added," he responds. “Clearly more cinemas are good for the overall revenue, as films are
seen by more people. But they really need more films. When you build a multiplex, you have to show multiple films,
not just one or two. But we’re just not able to supply what the consumers are demanding in China.

Across the region, "with the exception of maybe Japan, the cinema numbers in other markets are pretty good and
.. product mix is pretty good," Eliis elaborates, "in many places, the balance is around 50/50 between local and
our
international product, in India, however, we potentially have only about seven percent, but there are no market
restrictions. It’s more about what the consumers want to see.

“India presents us with many challenges," Ellis notes, “especially on the taxation front at the exhibition level, it’s not
really aimed at the foreign industry, it’s state protectionism. Taxes can be very, very high targeting films from
neighboring states and we get caught, sort of, in the crosshairs,,, Piracy is obviously an issue as well, but the local
industry is stepping up. Together we formed an organization called ACT, the ‘Association against Copyright Theft,'
The Indian industry is doing a terrific job of stepping up now and starting to protect their product.

On the educationai front, working with exhibitors, he believes, is key to “trying to figure out how we get the right
message through to the moviegoing public. Namely, that taking product online for free once it has been uploaded
iilegally is wrong and it damages our business. We are working together with local industry to make sure they
understand that their films are being camcorded as much as, if not more than ours and that their losses on a
percentage basis are obviously far greater than ours."

After all, "piracy is not just a Hollywood problem,” Eliis reminds us. “It is a global problem and our ability to outreach
to the local industry is constantly on my mind. In every country 1 visit, I am meeting with the local industry, whether
that be individual producers or guilds and associations. It’s all about working together and figuring out how to get
the message out consistently—whether to the governments and politicians or to the public—about the problems
that we all are facing and the need to address them together as a group."

With all the successes achieved and progress being made, the fight still goes on. “It always feels that way,” Ellis
responds when we liken his mission to that of a plumber or roofer. As soon as one hole has been fixed and leakage
is contained, the next one opens. “It's like the whack-a-mols-syndrome," he sighs. “When you’ve had successes
like we had, such as Hong Kong and Malaysia, it's a big achievement. Looking at our 2009 figures compared to
2008 overall, the actual camcording forensic matches are down 23%. Yes, it does shift around, but we can make
quantifiable differences. We've seen the period a camcord reaches the Internet stretching into a number of days,
which again is a quantifiable achievement”—thanks to the hard work of Ellis and the MPA-I team. “But it doesn’t
stop. Trying to get the toothpaste back into the tube is a never-ending task.”

Links referenced within this article

www.mpa-i.org
http://www.mpa-i.org

Find this article at:


htlp://www.fitmjoumai,cQm/filmjournal/corstent_d!splay/news-and-features/features/movies/e3i02240e53d2361c71fd37ba15da6537fd

0 Uncheck the box to remove the list of links referenced in the article.
KD-063

Michael C. Ellis
President and Managing Director,
Asia-Pacific Region for the Motion Picture Association (MPA) and
Motion Picture Association international (MPA-I)

Michael C. Etiis is the President and Managing Director of the Asia-Pacific Region for the
Society
Motion Picture Association (MPA) and Motion Picture Association International (MPA-i),

As a specialist in facilitating industry-government cooperation worldwide, Ellis has


successfully forged strategic partnerships and alliances that promote and protect the
commercial and creative interests of Asia's screen communities in the digital age. His tireless
efforts have helped to gain market access for the MPA member companies'* entertainment
offerings, as well as to improve and enforce the laws pertaining to inteiiectual property rights Southern
(iPR) in the region. California
Center
Ellis joined the MPA in 1999 from the litigation department of the international law firm
Herbert Smith, and is a lawyer qualified in Hong Kong, England and Wales. Prior to this, he had
a distinguished career in law enforcement that spanned two decades over which he served first
in the British Police and then the Royal Hong Kong Police. There, he spent six years with the
Commercial Crime Bureau focusing on trans-national fraud and extradition requests. He
ultimately rose to the rank of Superintendent and had the honor of being aide-de-camp to the
last Governor of Hong Kong, Christopher Patten.

An authority on copyright law, organized crime and IPR in Asia-Pacific and beyond, Ellis is also
an Adjunct Professor of the EMBA program of modern film and TV management at the
University of International Business and Economics in Beijing and frequently speaks to raise
awareness and understanding of these issues at conferences around the world. In addition to
his legal qualifications, he holds an MBA.
3/19/2018 Justice Department Charges Leaders of Megaupload with Widespread Online Copyright Infringement | OPA | Department of Justice
KD-064

JUSTICE NEWS

Department of Justice

Office of Public Affairs

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Thursday, January 19, 2012

Justice Department Charges Leaders of Megaupload with Widespread Online


Copyright Infringement

WASHINGTON – Seven individuals and two corporations have been charged in the United States with running an
international organized criminal enterprise allegedly responsible for massive worldwide online piracy of numerous
types of copyrighted works, through Megaupload.com and other related sites, generating more than $175 million in
criminal proceeds and causing more than half a billion dollars in harm to copyright owners, the U.S. Justice
Department and FBI announced today.

This action is among the largest criminal copyright cases ever brought by the United States and directly targets the
misuse of a public content storage and distribution site to commit and facilitate intellectual property crime.

The individuals and two corporations – Megaupload Limited and Vestor Limited – were indicted by a grand jury in
the Eastern District of Virginia on Jan. 5, 2012, and charged with engaging in a racketeering conspiracy, conspiring
to commit copyright infringement, conspiring to commit money laundering and two substantive counts of criminal
copyright infringement. The individuals each face a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison on the charge of
conspiracy to commit racketeering, five years in prison on the charge of conspiracy to commit copyright
infringement, 20 years in prison on the charge of conspiracy to commit money laundering and five years in prison
on each of the substantive charges of criminal copyright infringement.

The indictment alleges that the criminal enterprise is led by Kim Dotcom, aka Kim Schmitz and Kim Tim Jim Vestor,
37, a resident of both Hong Kong and New Zealand. Dotcom founded Megaupload Limited and is the director and
sole shareholder of Vestor Limited, which has been used to hold his ownership interests in the Mega-affiliated sites.

In addition, the following alleged members of the Mega conspiracy were charged in the indictment:

Finn Batato, 38, a citizen and resident of Germany, who is the chief marketing officer;
Julius Bencko, 35, a citizen and resident of Slovakia, who is the graphic designer;
Sven Echternach, 39, a citizen and resident of Germany, who is the head of business development;
Mathias Ortmann, 40, a citizen of Germany and resident of both Germany and Hong Kong, who is the chief
technical officer, co-founder and director;
Andrus Nomm, 32, a citizen of Estonia and resident of both Turkey and Estonia, who is a software
programmer and head of the development software division;
Bram van der Kolk, aka Bramos, 29, a Dutch citizen and resident of both the Netherlands and New Zealand,
who oversees programming and the underlying network structure for the Mega conspiracy websites.

Dotcom, Batato, Ortmann and van der Kolk were arrested today in Auckland, New Zealand, by New Zealand
authorities, who executed provisional arrest warrants requested by the United States. Bencko, Echternach and
Nomm remain at large. Today, law enforcement also executed more than 20 search warrants in the United States
and eight countries, seized approximately $50 million in assets and targeted sites where Megaupload has servers

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-charges-leaders-megaupload-widespread-online-copyright-infringement 1/3
3/19/2018 Justice Department Charges Leaders of Megaupload with Widespread Online Copyright Infringement | OPA | Department of Justice

in Ashburn, Va., Washington, D.C., the Netherlands and Canada. In addition, the U.S. District Court in Alexandria,
KD-065
Va., ordered the seizure of 18 domain names associated with the alleged Mega conspiracy.

According to the indictment, for more than five years the conspiracy has operated websites that unlawfully
reproduce and distribute infringing copies of copyrighted works, including movies – often before their theatrical
release – music, television programs, electronic books, and business and entertainment software on a massive
scale. The conspirators’ content hosting site, Megaupload.com, is advertised as having more than one billion visits
to the site, more than 150 million registered users, 50 million daily visitors and accounting for four percent of the
total traffic on the Internet. The estimated harm caused by the conspiracy’s criminal conduct to copyright holders is
well in excess of $500 million. The conspirators allegedly earned more than $175 million in illegal profits through
advertising revenue and selling premium memberships.

The indictment states that the conspirators conducted their illegal operation using a business model expressly
designed to promote uploading of the most popular copyrighted works for many millions of users to download. The
indictment alleges that the site was structured to discourage the vast majority of its users from using Megaupload
for long-term or personal storage by automatically deleting content that was not regularly downloaded. The
conspirators further allegedly offered a rewards program that would provide users with financial incentives to upload
popular content and drive web traffic to the site, often through user-generated websites known as linking sites. The
conspirators allegedly paid users whom they specifically knew uploaded infringing content and publicized their links
to users throughout the world.

In addition, by actively supporting the use of third-party linking sites to publicize infringing content, the conspirators
did not need to publicize such content on the Megaupload site. Instead, the indictment alleges that the conspirators
manipulated the perception of content available on their servers by not providing a public search function on the
Megaupload site and by not including popular infringing content on the publicly available lists of top content
downloaded by its users.

As alleged in the indictment, the conspirators failed to terminate accounts of users with known copyright
infringement, selectively complied with their obligations to remove copyrighted materials from their servers and
deliberately misrepresented to copyright holders that they had removed infringing content. For example, when
notified by a rights holder that a file contained infringing content, the indictment alleges that the conspirators would
disable only a single link to the file, deliberately and deceptively leaving the infringing content in place to make it
seamlessly available to millions of users to access through any one of the many duplicate links available for that
file.

The indictment charges the defendants with conspiring to launder money by paying users through the sites’
uploader reward program and paying companies to host the infringing content.

The case is being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia and the Computer
Crime & Intellectual Property Section in the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. The Criminal Division’s Office of
International Affairs, Organized Crime and Gang Section, and Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section also
assisted with this case.

The investigation was initiated and led by the FBI at the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center
(IPR Center), with assistance from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security
Investigations. Substantial and critical assistance was provided by the New Zealand Police, the Organised and
Financial Crime Agency of New Zealand (OFCANZ), the Crown Law Office of New Zealand and the Office of the
Solicitor General for New Zealand; Hong Kong Customs and the Hong Kong Department of Justice; the
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-charges-leaders-megaupload-widespread-online-copyright-infringement 2/3
3/19/2018 Justice Department Charges Leaders of Megaupload with Widespread Online Copyright Infringement | OPA | Department of Justice

Netherlands Police Agency and the Public Prosecutor’s Office for Serious Fraud and Environmental Crime in
KD-066
Rotterdam; London’s Metropolitan Police Service; Germany’s Bundeskriminalamt and the German Public
Prosecutors; and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police – Greater Toronto Area (GTA) Federal Enforcement Section
and the Integrated Technological Crime Unit and the Canadian Department of Justice’s International Assistance
Group. Authorities in the United Kingdom, Australia and the Philippines also provided assistance.

This case is part of efforts being undertaken by the Department of Justice Task Force on Intellectual Property (IP
Task Force) to stop the theft of intellectual property. Attorney General Eric Holder created the IP Task Force to
combat the growing number of domestic and international intellectual property crimes, protect the health and safety
of American consumers, and safeguard the nation’s economic security against those who seek to profit illegally
from American creativity, innovation and hard work. The IP Task Force seeks to strengthen intellectual property
rights protection through heightened criminal and civil enforcement, greater coordination among federal, state and
local law enforcement partners, and increased focus on international enforcement efforts, including reinforcing
relationships with key foreign partners and U.S. industry leaders. To learn more about the IP Task Force, go to
www.justice.gov/dag/iptaskforce .

Component(s):
Criminal Division

Press Release Number:


12-074

Updated September 15, 2014

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-charges-leaders-megaupload-widespread-online-copyright-infringement 3/3
10/13/2015 New Zealand Parliament - 5785 (2011). Sue Kedgley to the Minister of Commerce KD-067
Order Paper and questions
Questions for written answer
5785 (2011). Sue Kedgley to the Minister of Commerce (19 Ju! 2011): Did the Content provider
Minister meet with representatives of film, music, or computer gaming industries to
discuss the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Bill; if so, who and when?

Hon Simon Power (Minister of Commerce) replied: Yes. On 12 May 2009 I met
jointly with Tony Eaton, New Zealand Federation Against Copyright Theft. Campbell
Smith, RIANZ, Brett Cottle and Anthony Healy, Australasian Performing Right
Association, Mark Kneebone, Independent Music New Zealand. On 9 March 2010 I
House of Rtprcscmaiives
met with Mike Ellis, Motion Picture Association of America and Tony Eaton, New
Zealand Federation Against Copyright Theft. I also met with the Creative Freedom
Foundatbn and Peter Dunne on the 26 May 2009.
Information

Date;
19 July 2011
Subject
Economics and industry
Metadata

http://www.parl iam ent.nz/en-nz/pb/busi ness/qwa/QWA_05785_2011/5735-2011 -sue-kedgley-to-the-m i nister-of-comm erce 1/1


KD-068

No Hobb/f'bidding war* - PM
By Claire Trevett @CTrevettNZH
11:12 AM Tuesday Oct 26, 2010
Prime Minister John Key has already made it clear to Warner Bros that the
Government can not go to extreme lengths to ensure The Hobbit remains in
New Zealand ahead of his meeting with the company's executives this
afternoon.

Mr Key will meet the executives to try to persuade them to keep the filming of
the Hobbit in New Zealand. He would not discuss exactly what the Government
could offer but will not rule out further tax breaks or changes to industrial laws Prime Minister John Key. Photo / Steven
McNicholl
to placate the movie company. However he said there was only so far the
government could go.

"From the conversations I've had with Warner Bros so far I've made it quite clear if it comes to a bidding war, then New
Zealand is out because I don't think that's the right way to run this."

He said there was a risk that giving special concessions to Warners would allow other production companies to try for
the same deals in the future.

"We don't want to be re-negotiating with every single production company that comes to New Zealand."

He said there was a number of issues to resolve, including the industrial relations issues.

While he had assured Warners that the Council of Trade Union's promise not to interrupt filming with industrial action
was strong, he believed Warners did not trust the unions.

"I don't know how much store Warner Bros puts in that [assurance] but I understand it's not great store."

He said the uproar over recent weeks had"exposed [the union movement] for what it is at times which is sometimes in
the interests of workers and sometimes completely self-serving."

The Australian movie industry was "a wreck" because companies such as Warners did not want to make movies there
because of [MEAA assistant director] Simon Whipp, he said.

"So if we want the same thing to happen in New Zealand we should let him run our industrial relations policy here. I
for one don't intend to let him do that."

Mr Key said the decision on the Hobbit movies would have ramifications for the long term future of the film industry in
New Zealand.

"If the Hobbit movies can't be made here, one questions whether other movies would be made here. So we need to
work our way through what is genuine concern and what is not."

He said the NZ dollar was also a lot stronger than when the Lord of the Rings was filmed in New Zealand, which made
it more costly for Warners.

However there were a lot of benefits to filming in New Zealand and Warners had already spent quite a bit on the
Hobb/t films which it would have to write off if it took the movies elsewhere.

By Claire Trevett @CTrevettNZH

Copyright ©2015, NZME. Publishing Limited


KD-069
KD-070
KD-071
KD-072
KD-073

DMSO-355-1463
Reference:

f-'lSSKi*

NEW ZEALAND SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE


P.O. Box 900,
Weilington,
New Zealand

8 July 2014

Mr William Akel
Private Bag 92518
AUCKLAND 1141

Dear Mr Akel

Official Information Act Request relating to Mr Dotcom


1. In October 2012 you reauested, on behalf of Mr Dotcom, access to personal
information held by the NZSIS about Mr Dotcom. Following NZSIS’s response, you initiated a
complaint with the Office of Privacy Commissioner and the Inspector-General of Intelligence
and Security. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner requested the NZSIS consider
whether any further information might be released In light of the passage of time and the
public disclosures relating to your client. This led the NZSIS to release some additional
material In September 2013.
2. The NZSIS has recently received an Official Information Act request from Mr Fisher of
the New Zealand Herald for all information received, sent, or otherwise created in relation to
Kim Dotcom in October 2010. Accompanying this request was a letter from your firm
consenting, on behalf of Mr Dotcom, to the disclosure of personal information about Mr
Dotcom to Mr Fisher (copy enclosed).
3. In reviewing all material within scope of this request the NZSIS has determined that
some further information, vrilich was previously withheld, can and should now be disclosed.
Some additional documents from October 2010 have also been located while processing this
request.
4. Given these documents relate to your client, and in light of your previous request. I
have decided to provide you with copies of the documents disclosed by NZSIS in response
to Mr Fisher’s Official information Act request which include information not previously
disclosed to your client,

5. Accordingly, please find enclosed:


(a) three drafts of the letter from NZSIS to NZ police dated 14 October 2010 (the final
version of this letter, with redactions, has previously been provided to you);
(b) 19 internal NZSIS emails; and

Page 1 of 2
KD-074

DrviS0-355-1''.&3

(c) administrative documentation recording NZSIS’ security assessment in respect of


Mr Dotcom’s immigration application.

6. Some information has been withheld from these documents pursuant to the Official
information Act. This information has been withheld on the basis that disclosure would be
likely to prejudice the security of New Zealand and the international relations of the
Government of New Zealand (section 6(a) of the Official information Act), the entrusting of
information to the Government of New Zealand (section 6(b) of the Official Information Act),
and/or the maintenance of the law (section 6(c) of the Official Information Act).

7. The name of one Immigration New Zealand staff member has also been removed to
protect privacy (section 9(2)(a) of the Official information Act). 1 consider that there are no
other considerations, which make it desirable in the public interest, to disclose this name,

8. NZSIS staff names have also been deleted pursuant to section 13A of the New
Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act 1869.

9. An internal NZSIS email chain refers to ‘political pressure'. I have enclosed a statement
from immigration New Zealand relating to this reference to ‘political pressure'.

Yours sincerely

Rebecca Kitteridgs
Director of Security

End.

Page 2 of 2
KD-075

Simpson Grierson

17 April 2014 Partner Reference


G B Towers - Auckland

New Zealand Security and Intelligence Service Writer’s Details


Wellington Direct Dial: +64-9-977 5061
Fax: +64-9-977 5066
Email: greg,towers@simpsongrierson.com

Kim Dotcom

We act for Mr Kim Dotcom. .

in relation to Kim Dotcom in October 2010.

Yours faithfully
SIMPSON GRIERSON

tSregory B Towers
Partner

20732956
A0CKD\ND: Level 27, Lumiey Centre, B8 Shortland Street, Private Bag 92518. Auckland 1141. New Zealand, T+64 9 358 2222
waUMGTON: Level 24. HSBC Tower, 195 Lambton Quay, PO Box 2402. Wellington 6140, New T • 64 4 499 4599
CHRISTCHURCH: Level 11. HSBCTower, 62 Worcester Boulevard, PO Box 874, Chnslchurch 8140, New Zealand, r h-64 3 365 9914.

www.simp5ongrierso,n.r.om
KD-076

statement from Immigration New Zealand

8 July 2014

Immigration New Zealand always aims to deliver the best possible service and process visa
applications as quickly as possible, whether they are investor applications or residence,
work, visitor or student applications. The reference to "political pressure" was an
interpretation of a conversation that took place between NZSIS and INZ staff almost four
years ago. It's important to stress that after the amount of time that has elapsed it is
impossible to know whether this is an accurate reflection of comments that were made. INZ
reiterates that the decision to grant residence to Mr Dotcom was made solely by INZ and the
Minister of Immigration at the time was informed of the decision only after it had been made
under the no surprises policy.

The business migration scheme was launched in 2009 after the Government identified
attracting the right business migrants as a high priority initiative. As a result the Government
was very interested in updates on the policy and INZ provided progress reports on the
amount of money invested regularly. INZ officers at the Business Migration Branch were
very focused on Investor applications and processing them In as timely a manner as
possible, while ensuring decisions were of the highest quality. It appears that the
Government interest in the success of the policy may have been misconstrued as political
pressure. As has been stated on numerous occasions this was not the case and INZ can
state unequivocally that there was no political pressure regarding Mr Dotcom’s residence
application.
KD-077

DECLASSIFIED
“ 3 JUL 20H
Prom;
NZSIS
To:
Cc;
Subject: 10 Discuss Kim DOTCOM
Hm Request
Date; Monday, il October 2G10 fl:d6:15 a,m.

sent this through regarding DOTCOM.

NOTJCn; l^rjyip[,f;ve doCOIvIEITT

ho.s been
i!iv.!sr !he iwma of Die
t ) Piivcii.v/ Acl JH93
Aci J902
KD-078
f l-

DECLASSIFIED
- 3 JUL 201^
From!
To: NZSIS
Subject; RE; Kira Dot Com
Date; Tuesday, 12October 2DI0 9;20;db a.m.

PSS'FP.ICI'FEP-
Security Conirol Marking:

Thanks for writing this in my absence - nah, looks fine.

...... Original Messafle-


From:
; Sent; Tuesday, i2 October 2Dt 0 8 r-iS a.m,
To:
Subject: FW: Kmi Dot Com

Cla sg/ffcafr’gn i-SBGR-ET-

Here is the letter I drafted up for^g. Let me know if you want any changes.

FrotTt!'
Sent: Monday, 11 October 2010 5;36 p.m.
To:
Subject: RE; KInn Dot Corn

-SiassjfiGQtIbn: £ECRE^'

( Thanks^®-1 ran the draft past too ajid there are a few changes the two of us
in the attached. Please can you send tOMIM to format as a letter tcj^.

« File: Kim DOTCOM.doc »


Thanks. jWlj

---- Original Message-


From:
Sent: Monday, 11 October 2010 11;1B a.m.
To:
Subject: RE: Kim Dot Com

^ags/fea^n; RCSmiC-FEB
« File: Kim DOTCOM.doc >>

ffCTit.iK; tr-T-COMPLETE DO.CUMEl'fT


Pen ol liil-s c'!oromt-!jt hes been
v/ilii-'.t-lri liie ie:ir;s o! the
( LVivftcy .ilel 1&93
(V'T Ojtie-icl Intormalicn .“lo! 1982
KD-079
4

DECUSSIFIED
“ 3 JUL 201^
NZSIS
I wasn't really sure what I was meant to included or not but ! have moclcet
up the above. Let me know if I need to change anything.

From;
Sent: Monday, 11 October 2010 8;S7 s.m.
To:
Cc
Subject: RE; Kim Dot Com

Security Control Marking:

-jimpm away sick. Please can you draft up a letter for^ in her absence.

Thanks, j|jj|||

-^■Original Message-----
From!
Sent: Monday, 11 Ottober 2010 8;55 ajn.
Tol
Ce:
C * 1Q J ■ Em Dot Com

Security Control Marking:

Grateful If you could pass a note based on the attached Ip . Please Ipolude In
that note a reference to the fact that

Once that note has been passed topWl please let||H|and know so they can action
from their end.

Many thanks.

-'Stassffieetfen:-RCSTrUCTED -■
Security Control Marking:

.Giessifieatiefif-REfiT-n'IG-TED
Security Control Marking;

HO-rtC;-:; KCCMFUrtB BOCUtvlEiTJ


I'orl o‘ lb*:; dorU'.tCT;! Ii03 been
vrithhs-IJ iiiicjor llio iDtiiia ol Iho
( Pii-n-Ji'v Aol 1993
(t/T Otlif.-icl lnla-!tia!ion Act 19B2
KD-080

DEC!J\SSIFIED
“ 3 JUL im
NZSIS

^6te^officQt?cn^H^^^RfCTIID
Securfty Control Marking:

i
KD-081

DECUSSiFlED
~3 JUL 201^
NZSIS
1. A Permanent Resident Application for Kim DOTCOM (DPOB 21 January 1974,
Germany AKA Kim SCHMltz, Kimble SCHMITZ. Kim Tim Jim VE8TOR Kim lTm Jim) and
his partner Mona Verga DOTCOf 9 ................... 0
VERGA) was sent to NZSIsIMM

2. NZSIS subsequently DOTCOM !


hold any adverse intelligence that indicates tha
IS a threat to our national security.

3, However the FBI ■■■m have expressed


^Tzealand Police targeting
there keen interest in the possi
DOTCOM.

this.maitterjfurther please don t hesitate


to contact eitffer.

i-lOTIO/'-; IlJCOMPLKTE DOCUilENT


I'orl, of mi.T irociKjienl lias bsen
wiUiholc oii.-ic,). 11,3 ieriiis o( ihe
( ) . I’livooy Aol II39B
( kO Offr-.-ial In'finisallon Acl 1982 REGRET'
KD-082
I 't.

DECUSSfREO
-SECRET
- 3 JUL 201^
NZSIS
1 As part of their routine checks v.'ith NZSIS, Immiorajion New Zealand informed us of
ilia rojlw/ing indivfduals Vr'ho have applied fo? New Zealand Permanent Residency:

NAME: Kim DOTCOM


AKA: Kim SCHMiTZ. ‘Kimble' Krm SCHMITZ. Kiin Tim Jim VESTOR
OPOB: 21 January 1974. Gennanv
PASSPORT: PX 8027717 IFinnishl

NAME: Mona Verqa DOTCOM


AKA: VERGA Mona Aouino
DPOB:
PASSPORT:
MARITAL STATUS: cant
CHILD: Kavlo DOTCOM
PDOB:
CHILD:
PDQB:

2. DOTCOM has coma lo NZSIS altei to open source inforniation regarding his
numerous Dre\nous cHniinai convictions. Hi S'.cdnVicted oF 11 ease’s ja'f'Ebmputsr fraud, 10
cases of “data espionaoe", 11 cases bfsteMii usiness secreis, and receiving of stolen ________
goods, (j^i NXSIS |y~' ’
npid any adverse DcietcdMi
mteili.qen™ ithS intlicates inaii iiEaittoio[pmaiiMTarsBairitv^i .V.J-lowever, the '
FBI iseissffij Expressed thelt keen interest in the oeletedi sutstiquen tvBBM
m-rryiMiiiiilg
PQSSI of a Joint operation witi lice |e^g DOtCQM- Deleted:
if'
3.
Deleted: $
f
0etetrf:e
.FpjtijaEtedrJastmed
iVl'peteted:, M£<5AUPLO.i®
Deleted: is
Deleted.||y|

Forniahed: Justified

Deletedil

uestipns or wish to dfscuss this matter further please don I hesitate


Delctel: e!tf*ei|

^€CR€-T-

jjOTics; .n(co2-iri.i;TE~DOcuMEi-rr
doc'iictril li'i? bc-en
wite,iG.;i i;-,s iertns of tlie
< J, Piivucy Acl 1S93
^^ Intorreotion Act 1982
KD-083

ufcULAbyihJtu
“ 3 JUL 201^
NZSIS

1. As part of their routine checks With NZSiS, immigration New Zealand informed us of
the following individuals who have applied for New Zealand Permanent Residency:

Kim DOTCOM
NAME: Kim SCHMITZ, 'Kimble' Kim SCHMITZ. Kim Tim Jim VESTOR
AKA: 21 January 1974. Germany
DPOB: PX 8027717 (Finnish)
PASSPORT;
Mona Verga DOTCOM
NAME: \^RGAMwaAquino
AKA:
DPOB:
PASSPORT:
MARITAL STATUS; Wife of above appHcanf
CHILD:
PDOB;
CHILD;
PDOB:

2. DOTCOM has come to NZSIS attention to open soured information regarding his
numerous previous criminal convictions. He "convictedof 11 caseg_^ computer fraud, 10
iusiness secrets, andT^rjcelying of stolen
cases of "data espionage". 11.cas.es Pf.ste.a
NZSIS ■'Irold any adverse
goods.
intelligences indicates Ttmationai securifit' .H©wever. the
■■
expressed their keen Interest in the
FBI
poss
' eting DOTCOM.

7. you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further please don't hesitate
to contact I

HOTIOE; mCOMFUiTE DOCUMEm'


Farl ol iriis ilonuj-rior.l lias biien
unJir Ihf; U'rms oi llio
I I i’rivaov 1S03
OffivicI JUiormaSiofi Ad 1302
KD-084

DECLASSIFIED
- 3 JUL 201^
From;
7o;
Subject:
NZSIS
FW: Response 2102619
Date:
Tuesday, 12 October 2010 4;'I3;53 pan.

Security Control Marking:

------Origina! Message-
Front:

Setit: Tuesday, 12 October 20JI) 4:35 p.m.


To:

Subject: Response 2302619

i
-eteasifioation: RESTRICTE-D-
Secufit/ Control Marking:

Hi i- sorry didn't know who to pass this one to.

Basically this is a PR that came to my desk - for obvious (criminal) reasons. There is no security
concern as such but we have sent friis away fojH||| requests - arid it seems DOTCOM is quite a
bad but wealthy man. HgiveYer. the FBI hav& .CQiTig tack to us and aje looking to do. a joint Op
with NZ Police

So if someone could please email the INZ Ofuc^- i-esponstiiie for this FR and iei them know that
this application is on hold due to current investigations in to DOTCOM.

We are in the very, very initial stages of the possible Joint Op so won't be telling iNZ of the Police
or FBI's involvement.

TTianks,

Security Conlrol Marking:

-refoasifeatien: RCOTniCTCD
Security Control Marking;

KOTICF,: n-ICGjdn.t'TF. DOCUMENT


1^11 o! I'.iis cbcpr-wni hci3 bcon
wiilihsl;.! u::dF; ;|-,e Ic-rms of l!io
( ) Fbivrjuy 19SJ
t Oifioiol frilorination .6ol 1932
KD-085
/

DEGLASSiFtED
From: -3 JUL 2m
To;
Subject: RE Kfm Dot Com N2SIS
Date; Thureday, H October 2010 I'-ZdiOi p.m-

•S^GRET-
I, just finishing this off - is this letter to go via HI or by
Hey ^____
handmaii??

Cheers

PS: If mm who will send it??

Sent: Tuesaay, 12 October 2010 10:00 a.m.


To; ■■■Mb
SubpdtTFWrKim Dot Com

« File: Kim DOTCOM.doc »

Could you please action the below for me.

Thanks

From: ■■■jH
Sent; WoWay, 11 October 2010 5:36 p.m.
To;
Subject RE: Kim Dot Com

(
Thanks I ran the draft past too and ihere are a few changes from the two of us in Ihe
attached. Please can you send to IjH lo format as a letter tc^J.

Thanks,

-----Original M^sage-

From; FTTt'i'-’ - I

Sent: Monday, 11 October 2010 11:16 a.m.

Subject: RE (On! Dot Com


NOTICl;: IflcOMn.SJ.nt POCUMEl^
PoJl f.l Cdc dociir.ic-o! b«= h=e>’
■w'iih!i.i.!d '.ni'.Vir tlie U'rniB ol Oie
( ) PfiTOcy A cl 1933
— OSiiciol
KD-086
!

DECLASSIFIED
“ 3 JUL 201^
NZSIS
« File; Kim DOTCOM.doc »

I wasn't really sure what I was meant to Included or not but! have mocked up the
above. Let me know if I need to change anything.

From:__________
Sent: Monday, li October 2010 8:57 a.m.
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Kim Dot Com

-Sieestfeatterrr-ftEgff'RiOT-CD

Security Control Marking:

away sick. Please can you draft up a letter for|p|| in her absence.
I
Thanks,

exi

-----Original Measage-

From:

StnU Monilay, li OOi^er 201D £:55 a.tii.

To;

Cc

Subject: Hm Dot Gam

-StaoGifrcDtien.HTCG'TniCTEQ'
I

Security Control Marking;

Grateful if you could pass a note based on the attached to ■ Piease include in
that note a reference to the fact that

Once that note has been passed toQg, please let^J and pi know so they can action
from their end.

Many thanks.

NOriCK: [fiCOtTPI-iiTE DOCUMENT


Fc.rl ot S.'hs dcaii.ne.ai has been
•vriliihc'ld u;=£.ta? tha isnsis ot the
( Act 1093
iyO 0(li'.ri'jl tiiionnoriion Aci 19112
KD-087

DECLASSIFIED
" 3 JUL 201^/
Security Control Marking;
MZSIS
-et655ifieetfeffi-R£gr-ft!eT€D—
Security Control Marking:

I
KD-088
\

DECUSSlFIEn
- 3 JUL ZOl^i
NZSIS
From:
To:
Subject; RE
Date: TTiursday, M October 2010 3:115'.TZ p.m.

•aasafieatient- R SS-TRI GTE D-


Securify Control Martting:

Thanks for the reply. Nah, that's all good - It's just a pity there's never much

.......Original Messatjs-----
Froiu: ____
: SeiiL- ttiursday, iri October 2010 2:56 p.ni.
To:
Subject: RE

Ctlassification^RfiS-TRICTED
Securify Control Marising:

Thanks,

-----Original Message-----
From:
Set)t: Tuesday, 12 October 201(1 4;riri p.m.
To;
Subject:

-efassiffoation; RCOTRIC^
Security Control Marking:

Hi Team,
Just a question-
as mv dude Kim DOTCOM e wlio lias
Gliaue^ fus name several tidies -

HOTtriE: mccisjr-'ii-rrE "


Pari L-.l I’iii douiirfienl hers been
unc'er the lerms ol Uie
( ) F'i'.iocy Acl 1993
( OKhtid iTilnmcilion Ac! 1982
KD-089

DECLASSIFIED
“ 3 JUL 201^
NZSIS

Seeurity Control Marking:

'Glaeslfieaiiet=fr-R'S6T-RI GTEB
Security Control Marking;

a5tesstfioaSenr=R&0TRI CTCD'
i
Security Control Marking;

ITOIiCS: ;i'cC;OMPLETS; DOCUI'JENT


Harl o! iS;n (rtH'y;;'.5--r<t ha!i bsen
vvilhiifl,! liii Lorms ol ihe
( ) Privci-;v Acl U1S.1
( OII:'d.7l !ii!ori;itiMon Acl t982
KD-090

DECUSSIFIED
- 3 JUL 20H
From:
Tor
Subject:
NZSIS
Kim DOTCOM
Date; Frida/, 15 October 2010 flMGrSl a.m.

ClaSSiffcstion *

Morning,

There is a letter waiting for you at records regarding Kim Dotcom. Kim is an individual
with a criminal cyber background and the FBI have expressed some interest in a joint
investigation with NZ police against Kim {we have also flicked a copy of this letter
through miljll to you)

Hopefully the letter should explain everything, but if you have any questions please feel
free to contact or myself.
;
Thanks

TtOTlcC: DOCtFMEHT

Pan o! F:'i3 do'.-O! irr.U

( bbivcicy .^cl
{ ^ rjlli.;iann;c.T:'cr:ioir Acl 1902
KD-091

DECLASSIFIED
“ 3 JUL 20f^
From: NZSIS
To;
Subject; RE: Khi DOTCOM
Date: ■Rjesday, 19 October 2010 5:13:50 p,m.

■eiasGi(icatiM--SECP,e?.

Got the letter, thanks.

1 have left a voicemail message letting you knov/ whal I intend to do, If you haven’t heard from me
late next week please give me a gentle reminder!

Cheers,

----- Original Message......


From: Ijfiii
Sent: Friday, 15 October 2010 8:59 a.m.
To;
Subject: fClm DOTCOM

eiessmcafton: SECRET-

Morning, ,
Thsre is 3 ietter,watting for you at records re«ard!ng Kirn Dotcom. Kim is an
individual with a criminal cyber background and the FBI have expressed some
interest in a joint investigation with NZ police against Kim (we have also flicked a
copy of this letter throughWBi to you)

Hopefully the letter should explain everything, but if you have any questions please

feel free to contact ... or myself.

Thanks

Cfassiftoatr li •sncPET-

NOTiCiS: UrcOMPtr-TE OOCUMEHT


Pari of ibiE Uocurr.fnl has been .
v/ilhhelJ I'.ntler ilie Icrms of Uie
( J\ct 1393
( c<r OfttoiCi! hifoi mcdion Acl 1S82
KD-092

DECLASSIFIED
- 3 JUL 201^
Frorni
To: N2SIS
Subject; RE; Kim DctCom
Date: Tliursday, Z) Dttobej 2010 3H1;36 p.m.

Security Control Marking:

i hanks for taking care of this.

■original Message-----
From:
Sent: ThonsdBy, 21 October 2010 3:<t0 p.m.
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Kim Dot Com

Security Control Marking:

Hi all

The note on Kim DOTCOM went to at the beginning of this week:

Cheers, IKrt'

i -Original Message-----
From:
Sent; Monday, 11 October 2010 8:55 a.m.
To:
Cc;
Subject: Bm Dot Com

-Gteaeiteallon: RESTRiCTCD
Security Control Marking:

Grateful if you could pass a note based on the attached tq . Please


include in that note a reference to the fact that—HiW

Once that note has been passed to^J, please let^H and^B know so
they can action from their end.
h'lCOi'flfj.tirE IjOCcrMEHT
been
V. i;r;.>.r iho tc,fi-:;s of lire
( ITi'/fi..-; .A,;i '993
Oi'-'"''-''! In'cnccilion /lcI I0D2
KD-093
i

DECUSSIFIED
-3 JUL 20t^
Many thanks.
NZSiS

■CloQGif)oatjgn?-°R&ST-R IGTEB-
Security Control Marking:

■Clas&inoaiion: PICSTRiGTEQ
Secuhly Control Marking:

^tassifeati&fl:' SEGRET-

-etassfficfiiioii; RGOTRICTOB'
Security Control Marking:

Security Control Mailring:

no^ficrj: uICr>!'Jth£:TIt: I.IOCmriEl't'F


"h^-,rihn *~»r;K='U
v/iC-i'.t-i,, -.ur-l'.'i I!'.* torivio ol liie
Ai'l U'® -
(
t VlT r;,;; ,n\ liilorinalion Ac\
KD-094

DECUSSIF/BD '
Fromi " 3 JUL 201^
To;
Cc: NZSIS
Subject; RE; Kim Dot Com
Date; Friday, 22 October 2010 2;0I;27 a.m.

Securily Control Marking;

---- Original Message----


From:
Sent; TTiursday, 21 October 2010 3 ;'10 p.m.
TO!

Cc;
Subject; RE Kim Dot Com

1.''

Security Control Marking:

Hi ail

The note on Kim DOTCOM went to at the beginning of this week:

-^-original Message----
From;
Seiit: Mond^, 11 October 2010 3:55 a.m.
To;
Cc;
Subject: K3m Dot Com

-SkaeeFflootion: .'nrSTRiCTCS-
Security Coritrol Marking:

Grateful if you couici pass a note based on Ihe attached tojBHWM. Please

HOTICS; gtCCMt't-LtT.n: DOCltfeENT


Ptm cit Ihis rc!--.“r'.!.cr.t been
'•■.'illiheiri ijje letn.s ol the
( U Piivccy A cl 1033
( O Ofi;,;icl i.nicnuasion .Acl 18.82
KD-095
I

DECUSSlFiED
- 3 JUL 201^
S
include In that note a reference to the fact that:

One, ftal not. h« been paaa.d tbBi ptea ielB “


they can action from their end.

Many thanks.

eteesiflfifltiani-RBSTRI CTC&
Security Control Marking:

-GSaeeifieatfeffi-RCGTniCfEe-
Security Control Marking:

■Gieseffteetierw-SGSRCR-

_SfasSffieaift5ni-”R£STrt!CTfZ'e'
Security Coniro! Marking:

■dcooiricaL'an; nCGTRICTilB'
Security Control Marking:

NnrToi;; Yirc-f.n.ini-t-'.'j'i: QQcruMltHT


:il C.ij cic -.‘.-iiesi liObi ib'i&ri
iiiid-'.;- IIK) ol iiir:
t PnV'trv .rtcl I39i!
( OII:?.-ii;! iri'nnna'ioD Af;l !SH2
KD-096

DECLASSIFIED
- 3 JUL 201^
!
From! NZSIS
To;
Subject: FW: Response 2102613
Date: Tuesdoy, 26 October 2010 9:l<i;00 bits.

■Gtes«ifeati©ptr-R-6Sm(&FeB-
Security Control Marking;
Hey ^ ® dotcom. Wonder what "Political Pressure" INZ are under??

----- Original Message-


From:
Sent; Friday, 22 October 2010 12:48 p.m.
To:
CC!
Subject': RE: Response 2102619

ClQQaifioation: GCSnET-

Hi
Since DOTCOM is not of security concern, there is no reason for this app^Mtion to bs on

with granting him PR.

Thanks, J/j^

ext

■Original Message----
From!
sen t: Friday, 22 October 20ip 11:45 a.rt,
To;
Cc;
subject! RE: Response 2102619

-etaselfieatiefri-SECRST-

Hi
IMB1 away today, but little has changed with this case since her email last week. Kjm
DOTCOM Is not of security concern but Is liKely £o soon become the subject o a join
NZ Police criminal investigatJon. We have passed this over to NZ Police.

klHihsHct-M about next steps for dealing with iNZ and get back to you.
I'lOTtC-r;: tl'i "rj’vscut'j'iv
puil ol I'd;, huo bio!!
vfil-ih-jM nr-.'.--. t'S r.-'V! !;■
( L ikjich-r.-:': iT.J
(-y] h.i.:. ..ioiicn Acl-
KD-097

DECLASSIFIED
“ 3 JUL 201^

Cheers. |m|
NZSIS

ex!

-—Original Message-----
From;
Sent: Friday, 22 October 2010 11:21 a m.
To:
Cc:
Subject: FW; Response 2102619
Importance; High

i
phoned me to advise lhal (he INZ CEO ( Nigel SICKLE) Is
puesISSfRcasels on hold. Apparently there is some -pol,Heal pressure to

process this case.


IHjHHIIIIH as to what is happening.
Can you advise emaTotithis case to|m|.
Naturally 1 cannot go back via phone or

You wiii need to ensure that the CEO Is appropraitsSy briefed on this case.

Over to you-

—-Original Message-----
Froml ......
SentJ Tuesday, 12 October 2010 *4:35 p.m.
TOi
Subject Respcdife 2102619
f

SGcurity Control Markings

HIHMH sorry didn't know who to pass this one to.

Basically this Is a PR that came to my desk- for obvious (c^a!) reasons. There is

to US and are looking to do a Joint Op wth NZ_Poltce

We are in the very, very initial stages of the possible joint Op so won't be telling INZ

of the Police or FBI's involvement.

Thanks,

HOTJC-rt: racOt-'IPLrirE DOCIMEWT


Pari ol thin dc-cimionJ l:o5 been
■svilllheid I he tn: li'.B ol the
( Pfii'Cicv Act 1333
Oliickil lnto^r>a;i■^^ Act 1932
KD-098

DECUSSIFfP^
- 3 JUL 201'!
NZSIS

•€fessffieayefi^^gS5RtG^e©-
Securtty Control Marking;

eiassffieatiGFK-SECEEIL

■dascifioation; .SECREl.

daeatficaHen: 'SEGRET

■etesstficfttfonH^ESTRiCTED
Security Control Marking:

NOTiCE: IHCO:,.K--LE7E DOCUI'IEl'fT


Pari oi ihis cloaisrasnl lias been
willilifr-ld under trie terms o! !ha
( ) P-ivrrev Aci ls/95
( Giiiiia! Inlonnoii'jn Act 1982
KD-099
!

DECLASSIFIED
- 3 JUL 201^
Ffoms NZSIS
To;
subject: FW: DOTCOM
Date: V/ednesday, 27 October 2010 S;00:S1 P.m.

■Cioaotfeatiw;- qprPFT

-----Original Message......
From)
Bo nt! Wednesdal', 27 Ortober 2010 ri ;55 p.m.

! To:
Cc;
Subject; dotcom

■^assific;iUim I. SCCRET-

Below Is the responseHi^replieti vm/gm lelTbeo to


NzToiS beSSot. IS .rented PR. « Pom looMn. et Ws records

INZdo hev. .nod.h on his C-dmina'^°y^“ ”UCrFB«rgIo^

Hope this helps,

-----Original Message-----
From:
Sont; Friday, 22 OebAer 2010 12;d8 p.m.
To:
Ca
Subject; RE: Response 2102639

■etesstitotteni SECRE3Lw

Slnoe DOTCOM is no, «<conoo^":.-*^^^^^^^

with granting him PR.

Thanks,

ext
NOTICE: .rt'ICOMRETE DOCUMENT
Pail o! l;ib <k>;Vr:;.ionl bets Uecri
v/llhriei.:! under ihn lofrns o! Hie
( ) Frivcicy Acl 1383
( ,/J Ol.'idal Inioririalion Aci 1392
KD-100
i'

DECLASSIFIED
"3 JUL 2014
MZSIS

vi£W j
i

THt'^ iiant on 2Q)0-1U"28 09:52.55.0


i
This candidate is c-f no secuiiiy concern toi iJZSIS. Hov/evei,
candiciaie iias been passed over to I'izypoiice who wiii be working
wiiir FBi on this matter becairse ot Ills criminal dealings.

i Vf
VI £V**

Tiirs: |comment on 2010-09-27 1d;35;S0_.0 (■■_

I
Titre; Comment on 2010-10-12 15:59:01,0 (j
Probable FSliNZ Police jolnl OP. PR Aijplicatlon to be put on hold. J
IMZ not to be let known at this stage as at initial discussion stage ot |j
possOP, ■

HO'tlQE: !Kt;;0):;:eiSTE DOCUI'IENT


Part a! I'.;;3 i.Wi.'v.raeAi lies tiEfon
v.'iihbold '.li'.d.sT Ih- frsr.Tis ol the
( pi-ivacy Ac: 1693
( Oliicie! [uloruriation Ael 19E2
KD-101

DECLASSIFIED
' 3 JUL 201^
NZSIS
|Tyj)e_................ . -tolUt-.-.- ...._ . imiMiSik...-.-.
........ ■''■'"I-Type:
Assessment Pr - Sm RESTPJCT60-
Blanch / Section: lMMIGPATiOh-1 -RE9^RIGT'EP>"
Comment: Clearance Comments: no comment ■RE5-TRi6-TE0"
Created By; ADMINISTRATOR ■ RCOTBie-T-EP'
-Regi^lGTt-D -
Date Completed: 2010-10-28 '<*:■
Date Filed: 2B October 2010'* nCGTPjG-TEC-
Nationality; German -RCCTrJCTED
Person Name; Kiirs DOTCOM -REST-f=Her-EB-
Priority; Idormal ■ ■rCGTRIGTED
l^^lheated Date: July 29, 2010 09:24:57 +I2;00'« RDOT-RIGTED
•REGTfde-T-EB-
WMStatus: completed ___ nccTRier-EP-
Source: -RESERIGTEp'
I

KOTICi;: IWCOM-'LETE DOCUMENT


Pari o! IMrs doauirieul Irca been
v.'ilH.J'tibr ijsrrtiir lb::; lorrus ol Ibe
( L'' P-ivorTY Acl !E:03
{ OUi',-it:l (nk'ririolioii Ad 1982
KD-102

DECWSSIFIED
Thanks, '3JUL 201^ ;
.1

N2S1S

HOTI(--;::i JN'CQivB'lETE DOCUMENT


Po;l c-l c!o.rj;;;su1 hi^s baen
uiKli^r Ihfs i&rTjis o^ ihe
( Ac-1 J&53
(Offici-.tl Juformcjlion Ad 1982
KD-103
i

DECUSSIFIED
-SJULZOlit ;
From: NZSIS
To;
Subject: RE:
Date; Fliday, 29 October 2D10 12:22:20 pjn.

gfasg/ffefttfsn/ nSSTWCTEB

make sure its what you wanted + anything else that


Flicked it to review just so you can
you want to add.

From: IMi—
sent! Friday, 29 October 2010 8:27 a.m.
To:
Subject:

-etaeaifieatian: R5STRIGTED-

Security Conlroi Marking:

I need you to gather all email and format correspondence we have had with FBI* and Police
and make sure It Is all uploaded on DOTCOM’s record - I just have "
them etc. or we'll be asked to produce them. If Its an email - can you make sure the TO/CC
see
addresses etc Is at the top of the email please.

Thanks,

I.

GlaocifiDatieFH-RESTRIGT6&

Security Control Marking:

HOTIOE; il'TCOMiT.ETE DOCUMENT


Perl ol titia ctocLijnenl !ms been
wilhhelij under llio terms ot the
( ) PiivQcy /Id 1933
(O'J/dtil Infcniialion Ad 1992
KD-104
I

DECUSSIFiED
- 3 JUL 201^
From: NZSIS
To:
Subject! R& dobcotn
Date: Friday, 29 October 2010 9:16:47 a.m.

■G}^ssmmitkrn:-RE€TRICTED

Did you want me to hit Up downstairs to for any corr they have regarding him.

From:___________
Sent: Friday, 29 October 2010 9:17 a.m.
To:
Subject; dotcom

Security Control Marking;

Hey I- I've dorie a timeline for DOTCOM conespondence which might help

j
14th Oct 2010 - We Wrote a latter to N2 Police With this request (you have this letter)

H (yum)

Security Control Marking:

uiCGMPI^.TF. DOCUMEttT

Pan cl Ittis has Useii


v/iUih!LM -.i-.v.lft Ir.e Ifirnis o! tUo
) p.-ivt:cy Acl 1993
O-rP.-itil Inloraiotion ACt 1-982
(
KD-105

DECLASSIFIED
-3 JUL 201^
Fromr
NZSfS
Tor
Date; Friday, 29 October 2D10 9:2B;39 a.m.

^l°anl|(|?’sent to Theo Kuper this morning - hopefully that's made our

in'/oivemeht a little a bit clearer for him.

CLAGQinCATION: SECRET-
Kleterunderstand that you act in an advisory role - let's hope the right decision is made vrith
this one. So i thought I would give you a quick timeline of our correspondence to put it in
perspective:

haveJjjsJgtteQ
14lfi?3cf2D10-
And that tg y4iere we have left ik.|

•f' ' ■

MOTiCi": IJ'tCOMPLETE DOCOTviENT

Krtl ol liiis tJocujTiciil lins been


■willihckl t;;v.'.(,T tho of the
( ) lorvcic-y Aoi iS93
i \X liiiori-iialiQn Acl 1S82
KD-106

DECUSSfFIED
“ 3 JUL 201^
From: N2S1S
To:
Subject: FW; Kinr DOTCOM EM Follow Up
Date: Friday, 29 October 2010 8:3^:29 a.m-

Securily Control Marking:

I found this one from PH

-----Original Message—-
Ffonii

Sent! Tuesday, 2S September 2010 2;38 a.m.


To:
Cc;
Subject: RE: Kim DOTCOM Fdlow Up

■eiaaalficiatton: RS0TRICTED
Security Control Marking:

I chased this up last week, I was supposed to receive a phone cal! earlier on about this. Will keep
you posted.

Cheers,

■Origtaal Message-----
From:
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2D1D 10:S7 PH
To:
t Ce;
Subject: Wm DOTCOM Follow Up

Hi,
How are you settling into your role over there?

I was won.dering if you could d.o a gentle follow up rgganjing on


kirn DOTCOM that had been forwarded onto the FBI
In august 2010,

They have given the following details for a point of contact if its of any help-

KCriCe; H-lCOKPiETE DOCUMENT


t'orl cl .I'-i;: dr‘t'’.i:!;L*nl hcis been
'"'ilhiisl..-! c'irif-r (Ts Jcmis d! She
( ). iVivc: V -‘’'ct 1S93
( vT Olfidal Inforinotion Acl 19C2
KD-107
i

DECLASSiFlED
- 3 JUL 201*i

Thanks.
NZStS

Securiiy Controf Marking:

Security Control Marking;

HonciTin pocinv^

wiit.hpiJ
( ) R-iya;.-'/ Acl IB93
t-T [r.:on:ni:io^AcU^
(
KD-108
rf i

DECUSSIRPr
-3 JUL ?01ij
Security Control Marking:
NZSi.

gteaoffiealion: SEGRE-T

^ECKE-T-
ItJI I.

■Otostficotipn: ■ SEGR&

i -ejassificatiBn^GEC RET-

Cl^ssttir-dtioii: GCCREr

■Gtessifioatisni'-RE'ST-R-IStffi©-
Security Control Marking:
KD-109

DECLASSIFIED
- 3 JUL 201^
NZSiS
Ffoin:
To:
Dale: Friday, 29 October 2I>1U 8:20:d3 a.m.

■6te^eifieetieftT-R£STRICT-E&
Security Control Marking:

see them etc.


addresses etc is at the top of the email please.

Thanks,

Security Control Marking;

MOtiCE: J.HCOMPI.ETE DOCUMEI'l’f


tkjri oj ii'.is ctoc^imonl has been
yrillihelJ ujiUof ihe terms of (he
( ) rviveicy Ad 1993
( OKieki! (iifonKoUon Acl 19G2
KD-110
*s

DECWSSIFIED
“3 JUL 20W
NZSIS
Hope this helps,

---- Original Message-


Ffom;
Sent; Friday, 2Z October 201D IJr-lS p.m.
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Response 2102619

■Gie&cifisation:- SEGRET-

HI
Since DOTCOM is not of security concern, there is no reason for this application to
be on hold with us. Please can you inform your INZ contacts of this, also noting that
I
dotcom is the subject of a criminal investigation and that they need to discuss the
case with NZ Poiice before they proceed with granting him PR-

Thanks, p—j

ext

—-Orfelnai MeSage----
From:
Sent; Friday, 22 October 2010 lli-IS a jfi.
To:
0=:
Subject: RE: Response 2102619

Hi
but little has changed Viith this case since her emaii last
away today, ............
vJiein<im DOTCOM is not of security concern but is likely to soon become
the subject of a joint FBI / NZ Police criminal investigation. We have passed
this over to NZ Police;

ni chat to mmabout next steps for dealing with INZ and get back to you.

Cheers,—

■Original r^essage—•
From:
Sent; Friday, 12 October 2010 ll:21 a.m.
To:

bfCTtCM: THCvi-xi'-L.T;!;.
■ poiL of IMs c’-'X-v-:-!-rr,i horr h-sen
vritliliT;.'. v.r-'.-r.t ihe M-cv O' me
( ) r.'h'n;:-,' ,'\'-l 13:13
( XI OiI ici.-1 1 clc-v-i:alv-vi rid 193^
KD-111
¥

DECLASSIFIED
“3 JUL 201'!
Cc: NZSIS
Subject FW; Response 2102619
Importance; High

io advise thal the INZ CEO ( Nigei


INZ ■■11111111111 has phoned me ^
_____E)
BIG ip questioning why ihis ease is on hold. Apparently there is
some'-polHical pressure" lo process this case.

as to what is
email on this case

to|^m.
You Will need to ensure that the CEO is approprately briefed on this

case.

Over to you. .

---- original Message--


From! _
Tuesday, 12 QctDber ,2010 -tlSF p-m-
To:
Subject: Response 2102619

.-Clascificoliani FtECTrilCTE&
Security Coniro! Marking;

HI pjjjm|. sorry didn't know who to pass this one to.

for obvious (criminal)


1
rr —-r w. h.« »„.«
, ■amsM____ . apcj jt seems DOTCOM Is quite a bad but
3thy rlHoSever, the FBIl^j^ome back to us and are looking

to do a Joint Op with NZ Police

So if someone could please email the officer responsible for this


PR and let them know that this application Is on hold due to current
Investigations in to DOTCOM. ■
We are in the very, very initia! stages of the possible joint Op so won't
be (eiiing .INZ of the Police or FBI's involvement.

Thanks,

.dassffieatlen"RSST-RlGTE&
yrfCOMr-l.ETE^DOCTMl^
NOTlC.r;:
Port ni Iti--'- dccuci-iinl hos boon
wiliibtic'- '■•■■■■’nr lijc oi me
( I r';lvf„-v .f'.d 1533
(y) Oliidn! Uiicrmclion Ac'
KD-112
t)

DECLASSIFIED
- 3 JUL 201^i
NZSIS
■etasemealion:
Security Control Marking:

WB ■ sorry didn't know who to pass this one to.

Basically this is a PR that came to my desk - for obvious (criminal) reasons. There is

r^toVcoM s S'
to US and are looking to do a joint Op with NZ Pjiice

rsr,ppt£“
are In the very, very Initial .stages of the possible joint Op so won't be telling INZ
We
of the police or FBi's involvement

Thanks,

■Tivum]

-.eiagSjfieatfefl?-RCCTrtlGT-t
Security Controi Marking;

^lassrficaKori: GCGRgP-

■^aesWeation: GCCRET-

-iGiasstfeati«fiT-S5GReT-

-Gtasaifieatior'i.; RCCTRICtTEB-
Security Control Marking;

fifcoylPm^DOCUMS^
NOTICn::
W^l ^ovvrrsr.l f--,®"
v/sUitic’d viu’i'i ihe terms O me
( ) Privoin- rtP
(t/) Ollloicil i’.'-!i:-rma'uon Act
KD-113
if

DECLASSIFiEn
~ 3 JUL 20t^i
From: NZSiB
To:
Cc:
Subject; RE: DOTtHM
Date: TTiursday, 2B October 2010 9:11:SS a.rti.

Security Control Marking;

thanks for this.


e

Thanks

-----Original Message-----
From: ____
Sent; Thursday, 28 OdxAer 2010 8:‘!'t a.m.
To:
Cc;
Subject; re: dotcom

ThanksIHB. have discussed this with Thao,

Cheers

Security -
,Vs worth doing, and ifs worth doing right ©
-----Original Message-—
From:
Sent: We4nesday, 27 October 2010 A:5S p.'m,
To;
Cc:
subject: DOTCOM

-Gtessifieeltent SCCRET-

m replied to wiieti Bfi from INZ was


Below is the response | SrcoM. B.lWe a.„j
questioning our hold on
case

history to not give him PR and he isf™"'™


1° on his criminal

.............................. .......... M|jaMjj[||(The link below is F6I/N Police cbn'’


NOTic;;: liicoi-'TTrrr'E; poc'UiWWf——
PaM o! II T, rV-.-ur.Vrr.l l;nr. lisen
wUhhcM u:-.''-;r li.e ci i..e
( 1 priv'juv nul 1333
(/) Olliciu! inIcTVnaiioti Acl 1982
KD-114
'i t

DECLASSIFIED
' 3 JUL 201^
NZSIS
From;
To;
Sitbjecti FW; DOTCOM
Date Thitfslay, 28 October 201U8;36;21 a.m.

,€JassifeattenF^=i6STRt«Tee-
Security Conirol Marking:

FYl&A,

----- OtigitKiI Message-—"


From;
Sent; Wednesday, 27 October 2010 d;55 p.m.
To;
Cc:
Subjecb DOTCOM

■eteesification: SSCnCT

Hi
when from INZwas questioning our hold on
;o .STO! s^s,y» ,a,l -J.MO
discuss the case with NZ Poiice before DOTCOM is granted PR. Just frorntoofargath^rec^

Hope this helps.

! Originat Message-
Front:
Sent; Fiidy, 22 October 2010 12:^3 p-m.

Cc:
Subject: P£ Response 2102619

invSS n.«i to disouso «» case will, NZ Police before they peroeed

with granting him PR.

Thanks,

ext

ctrir-r 0:o ol the

(
(
KD-115

DECLASSiFIED
- 3 JUL 201^
NZSIS
-----Ofigina! Message-----
From:
Sent: fTidsi:, 22 October 2010 U;d5 a.m.
To:
CC!
Subject! RE: Response 2H126S9

■etessifteatkiii: OCGRCrP

NZ PoHce criminal invesUgafion. We have passed (his over to NZ Police.

PH aboul next steps for dealing with INZ and get back to you.
I I'll chat to

Cheers. MB

-----Original Message-
Frojn? ___________
Sent: fiiday, 22 October 2010 11:21 a.rti.

To:
Ce:
Ssibject: PW: Response 2102619
Importance: High

-GjaaolfiCQUont-OCCRET-

INZ

ppocess this case.

ill need to ensure that the CEO is appropraitely briefed on this case.
You w

Over to you.

-----Ordinal Message-----
From;
Sent: Tuesday, i.2 October 2010 t;3S p.rn.
TO!
Subject: Response 2102619

KOTJG.T: 3r!GOhrPt.ETE DOCUMENT

Pori o' ihis liov'.nnonl hcis been


V.'iilibcl'i i:h-.'-:rr His lc-ir.-i.s ol Ino
( Privn.:.;/ .''.cl iS'J3
( J OlfinRjl inlorhiolion Acl I9S2
KD-116
s'

DECUSSIFIED
- 3 JUL 201^
NZSIS

[fg2 has phoned me to advise that the [NZ CEO ( Nigel


BICKLE) is questioning why this case is on hoid. Apparently there is some
"political pressure" to process this case.

as to what is happening.
Can v/ou advise __
Naturally I cannot go back via phone or email on this case to mm.

You will need to ensure that the CEO is approprarlely briefed on this case.

Over to yqu-

---- Original Message----


From:
Sent; Tuesday, J2 October 2010 ^:35 p.m.
To;
Subjeci: Response 2102619

-Gtaseittealion: RCOTniOTCD '


Security Control Marking;

Hi I- sorry didn't know who to pass this one to.

Basically this is a PR that came to my desk - for obvious {crlmina!) reas^.


There is no security concern as such but we have sent this away for jmi
requests - and it sssms DOTCOM is quits a bad but wealthy man hlowever,
(he FBI have come back to us and are looking to do ajotot_Dp_witb_NZ_Police

So if someone could please email the INZ officer responsible for this PR and
let thern know that this application is on hold due to current investigations In to
dotcom.
i We are In. the very, very initial stages of the possible joint Op sio won't be
tetiing INZ of the Police or FBI's involvement.

Thanks,

■dasstfiealiot'!: RCOTRtOTEB
Security Control Marking:

Oteseifteati©fib'&E6RE^~

NOTICE;
Pmi oi hhs ViC.?
uodsr ilia O' we
£ ) I\-iv«..7 A;:! IS'J'i
KD-117

declassified
" 3 JUL im
NZSIS

-etessificafiwi CCCRCT

jgtasaJteatleffi-SeSRi^-

-Gtassffte&tiw^HIIOTUICTEB'
(
Security Control Marking:
KD-118
A

DECLASSlFfED
" 3 JUL im
From:
To:
NZSiS
Subject: FW: DOTCOM
Date; TFiutsday, 28 October 2010 8:52:25 s.m.

Security Control Marking:

piease follow up with MM and then reply, it appears to be a "Mo comment".


FYl,

----- Ordinal Message-----


From:
Sent: -mutsday, 28 Ortober 2«0 6:^ a.m.
To:
CC!

Subject: RE; DOTCOM

GlQaaificotiiun: 'uEGRET-

Thanks L have discussed this with Theo.

Cheers

, and ifs worth doing right ©


Security - it's worth doing
---- Ofieinel Messoae-*-'-
Froiii:
Sent; Wednesday, 27 October 20LQ 1:5S p.ni.
To:
Cc;
Subject DOTCOM

■etaeetfiealion: SgCR£T-

Rolow k ihe resoonseMIreptied toOBI when—from INZ was questioning our


hold on DOTCOM. Basically we don't have anything e'se to add but'
tell Theo to discuss the caie vtilh NZ Police before DOTCOM is granted PR. f^m
P'ink b.to,^rei;NZ
is
Police corr
Hope this heips,

fc- ol !h's :'r.."b^


vi:!0-;c:e ^1: ' --ss o.
f I f
( >/) 0:1!: ;v.i ::-:t '--T^
KD-119
!.*

DECLASSIFIED
" 3 JUL 20]^
NZSiS
-—Original Message-—
From:____
Sent; Friday, .22 October 201012M8 p.m.
To;
Cc:
Subject; RE Response 2102619

Sine. DOTCOM l« nol oI sacuilly ?™ ““oirnTSmCfTCOM Is

before they proceed with granting turn PR.

Thanks, m

-—Original Mesage-----
From; ^....
Sent: Ffid^, 22 OcfaAs-2010 11:45 am.
Tot
ec
SUMject: RE: Response 2102619

^aeolfioatiou: SCGRET -^

I—away today, but little has changed with this case since her email lag weelc
BBItGOM is not of security concern but is Hkely to soon become he^subjedof a
jQ]Pi( pg| -j f^2 Police criminal inves!:gation. We have passed

pg about next steps for dealing with INZ and get back to you,
iil chat to

Cheers,

-----Original Message-----
From: _
Sent: Fricfay, 22 October 2010 11 ;21 a.m.
To:
Cc:
Subject FW! Response 2102619
Importance: High

-Gleesifies{iefiT"SSCfiE^^

MOTICS:

a,W.ui-.-r I.«. bg
( ) privney Act IJbJ
(/) OSikiiul lnlorm«ltoni^L]!5L
A
KD-120
N

DECLASSIFIED
■Origlfial Hessagft-— -3 JUL 201^
From:
Sent; Friday, 22 October 2010 lliriS a.m.
N2SIS
To:
Cc;
Subject: FE; Response 2102619

Hi

away today, but little has changed with this case since her email last week, Kim
DOTCOM is not of security concern but is likely to soon become the subject of a joint FBI /
NZ Police criminal investigation. We have passed this over to NZ Police:

I'll chat to|H|[about next steps for dealing with INZ and get back to you.

Cheers,

—Original Message-—
From;
sent! Friday, 22 OcbAer 201011:21 a.m.
To;
Cc:
Subject FW: Response 2102619
Importance: High

iNZ ■■■■■■■ has phoned me to advise that the INZ CEO ( Nigel BICKLE) is
questo^T^^ case is on hold. Apparently there is some ''political pressure" io

process this case.

Can you advise


Nalurally I cannot go back via phone or email on this case toj^M

You will need to ensure that the CEO is appropraitely briefed on this case.

Over to you.

Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 October 20101:35 p.m.
To:
Subject: Response 2102619

HOTICl:; ;KGOi<rFl.'ErE DOCUMEl’n:


Part ol this drrr-iir.'ient kaa been
v.’ji|-.b.e,l,:i nrj'-jOr Iti'; Iv:i2s ol the
, ) Pi iva:.'/ -®.cl 1093
0!fi:;tcti hriormotion Ad 19G2
KD-121
p._.

DECLASSIFIED
“3JUL20H ;
NZSIS ■ '
Glassitioatiefi- RECTRiCTEr'
Security Control Marking:

HijmiH- sorry didn’t know who to pass this one to.

to US and are looking to_do a lornt Op wrth NZ Police jjgm

very initial stages of the possible joint Op so won’t be telling iNZ


We are in the very,
of the Police or FBI’s involvement.

Thanks,

Classification 1 RESTRICTED
Security Control Marking:

.GtassiScatten: SECREX

-etessificatiof'i;- GCCRET-

■Stassificdiiui'ii'GCCRCT

-eiaseifieatienf'SEGR&t^

IfOTlCK: !KCOMrr.ETE DOCUMENf


I^url o( ^iocurusnl hot; been
\filh)Telci iIto te;ms o\ the
( ) PrivucY Ad i033
( Olf'nial tntorir.ciljon Act 1902
KD-122

IrmnigratioB I^ew Zealand Investor One Category


TE llATONGA MAN EM E Application

CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL


DIRECTION UNDER SECTION 7(3)(a)(ii}
IMMIGRATION ACT 1987

Applicant: Mr. Kim DOTCOM DOB: 31 Jan 1974


Client number: 42988343

Application Number: 9733579


Citizenship: ■ Finland - born in Germany

1.0: Xntraduction
Mr. Kim Dotcom ("the applicants is the principal applicant on Investor Plus
application 9733579. For full details of the assessment of this application
see the attached written decision,

2.0 Background to request


In relation to his application the applicant has declared that in 2003 he was
convicted in Germany of tv/o offences; namely insider trading and breach
of trust. The applicant declares he was sentenced to two years
imprisonment and fined EUR100,000. The applicant also advises that the
sentence of imprisonment was suspended and he was placed on probation
for two years.

The applicant has provided a German police certificate [Tag 25] and this
certificate does not show any offences by the-applicant. The applicant's-
German solicitor has advised [Tag 21] that in accordance with German law
these offences have been remitted and removed from the applicant's
record.

Section 7 of the Immigration Act 1987 ("the Act") provides for certain
persons who are not eligible for exemption or permit.

Specifically, section 7(l)(b) of the Act provides that (subject to sub-section


(3) of section 7) no exemption shall apply and no permit shall be granted
to any person who within the preceding 10 years has been convicted of
any offence for which they have been sentenced to imprisonment for a
term of 12 months or more.

Section 7(2) of the Act provides that section 7(l)(b) applies irrespective of
whether the sentence is deferred or suspended In whole or in part.

] pfS 9733S79
KD-123

As the applicant has received a suspended sentence of two years


Imprisonment within the last ten years he is a person to whom section
7(l)(b) of the Act applies and therefore is not eligible for an exemption or
permit. However, this Is subject to sub-section 3 of section 7. Subsection
(3)(a)(!i) provides that notwithstanding subsection (1) of section 7 a
permit may be granted to any person in arcorcJance With a Special
direction.

The fegisiation noted above is reflected in policy at AS,20Ca)(ii) which


provides that any person described in section 7(1) of the Act must not be
issued with a residence visa or granted a residence permit except pursuant
to a spedai direction under section 7(3)(a)(ii) of the Act.

As the applicant is a person who fails within section 7{l}(b) of the Act then
he cannot be issued with a residence visa or permit except pursuant to a
special direction as described above.

The applicant, via his agent, has requested consideration of a special


direction [Tag 2],

3.0 Special Direction Policy


In summary, the following policy relates to the consideration of a special
direction:

3.1 S2.1(a)
This provision limits special directions to people described by section 7(1)
of the Act.
Comment
The applicant's convictions place him within the provisions of section
7(l)(b) of the Act and therefore he Is eligible to be considered for a special
direction.

3.2 S2.1(d)
This provision permits INZ to consider a request for a special direction
despite the request having been made without an invitation to do so.
Comment
Through his agent the applicant has submitted a written request to be
considered for a special direction. ■

3.3 S2.5(a)
This, provision states that any request must be made in writing and must
incjude the reasons Why the applicant considers they should be granted a
special direction.
Comment
The applicant's request has been made In writing and he has provided a
detailed submission setting out why he considers he should be granted a
special direction.

3.4 S2.10.15(a)

2 of 6 9733579
KD-124

This provision authorises an officer holding schedule 1 delegations to


approve'or decline a request for a special direction made by a person who
falls under section 7(i)(b) of the Act,
Comment
The applicant's convictions place him under section 7(l)(b) of the Act I
am the holder of schedule 1 delegations and thus I am authorised to either
approve or decline the applicant's request fora s pedal'difectloh.

3.5 S2. ID.15(b)


This provision requires that any approval of a special direction can only be
made if the person requesting the special direction is otherwise eligible for
the grant of residence under Government Residence policy,
Comment
The attached written assessment of the applicant's Investor l^application
has concluded that apart from the matter of the special direction the ^
applicant is otherwise eligible for the grant of a residence visa or permit
under the Investor 1 policy.

3.6 Overall comment


For the reasons stated above the applicant is eligible to be considered for a
special direction and as the assessing officer holding schedule 1 ^ ^
delegations I am authorised to either approve or decline the-applicant's
request for a -special direction.

4.0 Factors in favour of a special direction


In the applicant's written request [Tag 2] for a special direction, ten
positive factors are listed. I have set out those factors below and for each
have provided my comments based on supporting documents and
information available to me.
4.1 Grant of residence is in the national interest
I do not necessarily accept this claim. The applicant is wealthy and the
grant of residence will result in some of that wealth coming to New ^
Zealand and that is definitely of benefit to the country. However there Is
also a good, deal of negative publicity about the applicant and he has been
convicted of dishonesty offences in the past.
Overall, I do not consider that it is in the national interest that the
applicant be granted residence,

4.2 Potentiai of ongoing job creation


I am satisfied that this Is a factor in favour. The applicant has provided a
letter [Tag 14] from law firm Simpson Grierson detailing Gpnslderable
expenditure by the applicant in New Zealand and this Includes a current
annual wage bill of approximately NZDl.i million for staff employed by the
applicant in New Zealand.

4.3 Potential for venture capital benefits


The applicant is a wealthy individual and has already transferred funds to
this country and used those funds to purchase properties and other
consumer items, He is a proven entrepreneur and therefore I accept that
there certainly is potentiai for benefit through the introduction of venture

lufQ 9733579
KD-125

capita!, provided the applicant is able to find suitable projects he wishes to


invest in.

4.4 Potential for philanthropic benefits


I am satisfied that this is a factor in favour. The applicant has provided a
letter [Tag 22] from Simpson Grierson detailing donations of $50,000 each
made to the Christchurch 'earthquake relief fund and to an Injured
schoolboy rugby player. This is also verified by a letter [Tag 26] from the
Rugby Union Foundation of New Zealand.

Additionally, the applicant has expressed an intention to become a


significant sponsor of the MANA project charitable trust and intends to
provide a large fireworks display in Auckland for the.New Year.

4.5 Contribution to the New Zealand economy


This has already occurred and will continue to do so if the applicant is
granted residence. He is currently seeking 010 approval to purchase a
property valued at some NZD30 million and has .already purchased another
property as vjell as motor vehicles and other consumables.
4,6 Meets Government desire to attract high net worth
individuals '
Accepted.
4.7 The convictions do not reiate to the physical harm of any
individuals
Agreed.
4.8 There has been no period of imprisonment
Agreed. There is no evidence that the applicant actually served his
sentence, although there is some information to indicate he was held in
custody for several months prior to one of his trials.
4.9 The latest conviction occurred nine years ago and there has
:) been no recurrence since the applicant married and had
children
The latest offences occurred nine years ago and the convictions were
seven years ago. However, I do agree that this is a positive factor.
.•Y-- Section 7(l)(b) applies for a period of 10 years and after that, any
convictions fall into the less serious character walvei piuvlslons under
policy at A5.25.
Since the convictions In question the applicant has remained conviction
free and the section 7 10 year'period is not far from expiring.

4.10 There is no threat to the public interest or New Zeaiand^s


international reputation
I do not necessarily accept all of this claim. I do not believe there is any
indication that a threat to the public interest exists should the applicant be
granted residence.

4ui:6 9733S79
KD-126

However, as previously noted, the applicant has a great deal of


controversy surrounding him, This controversy may or may not be
deserved, but the fact remains that If the applicant is granted residence
there is the potential that this could negatively affect New Zealand's
international reputation.
The Hkellhodd and extent of this threat cannot be quantified, but based on
available Information It remains a possibility in my opinion.

5.0 Factors against a special direction


The main factor against the issue of a special direction Is the applicant's
convictions in ZOOl and 2003 for what are effectively, dishonesty offences.

Other lesser negative factors are the extensive negative publicity


concerning the applicant [Tag 17] and his status in Thailand as "persona
non grata," [Tags 16 and IS],
The negative publicity, a sample of which is at Tag 17, must be considered
against the applicant's clear police certificates (apart from the convictions
. declared in Germany) and the fact vie have no evidence to Indicate that
any law enforcement agency currently has an investigation underway into
the applicant or his business. '

The status of persona non grata in Thailand has been Investigated.. We


have confirmed there is no evidence the applicant was deported from
Thailand and the applicant himself has stated that he left Thailand
voluntarily to return to Germany to face the charges against him. The
persona non grata status was given to the applicant by the Thai authorities
because of the charges, the applicant faced in Germany. The effect of this
status is that it will be difficult for the applicant to re-enter Thailand in the
future.
5.0 Weighing of all factors
The applicant, if granted residence via a special direction, will provide (and
has already provided) fairly substantial economic benefits to New Zealand.
He has also shown (and indicated he will continue to do so) a commitment
to undertaking philanthropic activity.
There is also the matter of the N2D10 million that the applicant wii! invest
In New Zealand under the terms of the Investor 1 policy, should he be
granted residence. This is a not Inconsiderabie sum of money and will be
invested in either, company equity or bonds issued by local/centrai
Government and/or private companies. It wil! directly assist the economy
at-a time when it Is sorely needed.

Against the above positive factors must be considered the applicant's


convictions and the negative publicity that surrounds him.

In regard to the negative publicity, I do not consider that this is a serious


negative factor. There .is no evidence to indicate that the negative
publicity is concerned with criminal behaviour. The applicant, by ali
accounts, would appear to be a flamboyant individual and it would appear

5 of (} 973J579
KD-127

to largely be this flamboyance that has in the past generated some of the
notoriety that surrounds him.

The one serious negative issue remains the applicant's declared


convictions.

After carefully considering all of the factors both for and against it is my
opinion that the factors for a special direction outweigh by a considerable
margin, those against,

The applicant has already made a substantial economic contribution to


New Zealand through his spending here and will make further investments
here if granted residence. 1 consider that these benefits and potential
benefits outweigh the negative aspects flowing from the applicant's
convictions in 2001 and 2003; especially considering that the prison
sentences were suspended and that the appilcaht has maintained a. dean
police record since his 2003 conviction.

Therefore, as the applicant Is otherwise eligible for the grant of residence, I


have, as a person holding delegated authority under schedule 1, decided to
issue a special direction to the applicant authorising the grant of residence.

7. Or Summary
The applicant is eligible to request a special direction and has done so In
writing. Apart from the character issue the applicant is eligible for the
grant of residence. After carefully considering the applicant's request I
have decided to issue a special direction authorising the grant of residence
to the applicant.

Decisfon taken SPECIAL DIRECTION ISSUED

Signed Signed

Chris Biggs Name ?PC : Qareth om


Business Migration Specialist lW<ih Managsr
Date Friday, 29 October 2010 Date

Comments

6 ol'6 9733S79
KD-128

iTctmigration Hew 2^aland Investor One Category


TE HATOHGA WANENE Application

PA: Kim DOTCOM DOB: 21 Jan 1974


Spouse: Mona Verga DOTCOM DOB: 09 Ju! 1988
Daughter; Kaylo DOTCOM DOB: 08 Sep 2007
Son; Kim DOTCOM DOB: 21 Jan 2009

Application Number: 9733579


citizenship; Finland - born in Germany V/dL.L
:^7C0Ci
Regulation documents produced Yes/no Additional activities
» Blrth.certiflcates Yes See name changes at 8.1 t>7c0c
* Partnership_____ Yes
• Police certificates Yes See write-up at 5,0

^ • Passports Yes
« Medical documents, x-rays Yes

1,0; Introefuction
This application was received for consideration on 09 June 2010.

BJiO,mc^V9 '
a The objedh/^ ofthdMigrant Hrestmant pa/fcy fe to alfrabhmancfBt capStal^id laca! fimsvrgo^mment
by fifoMcHng raside'nce to ifiosa if/jo Wish to melee a'significant iontrtbuUdn to Maw Zealand's economy

2.Q: Investment funds and assets [BJ3.10]


2.1 Funds nominated and evidence provided ,
In his application for residence [Tag 3] the applicant has nominated the
following funds and assets:

Deposit With Citibank, Hong Kong USD10,000,000

The above funds and assets total N2D10,892,680.45 as at 14 May 2010.


Supporting documents are as follows:
Tag 4
A letter dated 09 March 2010 from Citibank (Hong Kong) Limited
addressed to INZ. This letter states that Mr. Kim Tim Jim Vestor (DOB: 21
January 1974) has in excess of USDIO million in his account 83778942
with the bank.

2.2 Comment
At current (16 June 2010) exchange rates USDIO million Is equivalent to
NZD14,358V900.

1 of 12 9733S7S
KD-129

The applicant's nominated bank deposits are acceptable on face as


investment funds/assets and they also are of sufficient value to meet the
policy requirement of NZDIO million,

3.0: Funds earned fegaHy [BJ3.1 OCb) (iU)]


The applicant has stated In his application [Tag 3] ''I am a major
shareholder (69%) In Megaupload Ltd (see www.meaauplQ.ad_.com) and I
have earned these funds through the distribution of profits in the last 2
years as documented in the annual accounts of this company*"

In his application [Tag 3] the applicant has stated that he earned NZD7
million in 2007 and NZD12 million In 2008 from Megaupload Ltd.

3.1 Supporting documents provided for iaiAfful earning of funds


As evidence that he has lawfully earned his nominated investment funds
and assets the applicant has provided the following supporting documents;
Tag 5
A typed page headed "Evidence of lawful earnings Megaupioad Limited."
This summarises the applicant's earnings in 2007 and 2008 and states the
following:
Earnings from distributions NZD5,294,890
Earnings from Director's remuneration NZD5,956,099
Earnings from accumulated profits NZD5,217,368
Total NZD16,468,357
Tag 6
M.egaupioad Limited annual financial statements for the years ended 31
December 2007 and 2008.
Tag 8
. Hong Kong company registration documents for Megaupload Limited, This
shows the company was first registered in February 2003, the applicant is
the sole director and issued share capita! is HKD50,000.
Tag 9
Certified copy of .Megaupload Limited return to the Companies Office. The
return was made on 28 February 2010, This shows the applicant as sole
director. Shareholders consist of three British Virgin Islands companies, an
individual in Germany and Vestor Limited. Vestor Limited js the major
shareholder with 34,501 shares out of 50,000.
Tag 10
Certified copy of Megaupload Limited share Certificate showing 35,000
shares held by Vestor Limited.
Tag 11
Hong Kong company registration documents for Vestor Limited, This
shows the company was first registered in September 2005, the applicant
is the sole director and Issued share capital is HKD10,000.
Tag 12
Certified copy of Vestor Limited retutn to the Companies Office. The return
was made on 06 September 2009. This shows the applicant as sole
director and shareholder with 10,000 shares.
Tag 13
Certified copy of Vestor Limited share certificate showing 10,000 shares
held by the applicant.

2 of 12 9733579
KD-130

3.2 Initial assessment


The applicant has claimed to have earned all of his nominated investment
funds from his company Megaupload Limited. He has provided evidence of
the registration of Megaupload Limited as a Hong Kong registered
company. He has also provided evidence from the Hong Kong authorities
that he is, through his company Vestor Limited, a 69% shareholder in
Megaupload Limited,

However, the only evidence of the applicant's actual income from


Megaupload Limited is the 2008 annual financial statements for the
company [Tag 6],

The accounts show the following income and payments In HKD;

2007 2008
Gross income 86,999,711 183,593,281
Expenditure 50,119,532 141,913,120
Income tax Nil 64,000
Net profit 36,880,179 41,680,161
Accumulated profit brought forward 276,068 25,156,247
Less dividends paid 12,000,000 28,000,000
Accumulated profit carried forward 25,156,247 38,900,408

Directors' fees 17,781,274 12,900,928

In 2008 turnover largely consisted of membership fees and other service


income (HKD116,890,359) and advertising income (HKD66,669,083). In
2007 turnover consisted almost solely of membership fees
(HKD86,950,10Q).

The fihancia! statements also show the following major expenditure in HKD
for 2008 (with 2007 figures in brackets).
Directors' remuneration 5,134,800 [ 5,649,000)
Exchange toss 3,324,664 ( 965,260)
Programming & service provider fees 26,703,273 ( 1,900,027)
Rebates to customers 6,381,508 C 4,107,407)
Salaries and allowances 7,329,119 ( 2,573,000)
Server hosting fee 72,057,833 (26,121,996)
Staff quarter expenses 12,646,474 ( 7,486,874)

Comment
Taking the financial accounts [Tag 6] at face value, when they are
compared to the-applicant's income claims as summarised at Tag S the
figures do agree.

At Tag 5 the applicant has claimed the following income:


Total dividends received in 2007 and 2008 HKD27,600,000
Total director's remuneration in 2007 and 2008 HKD30,682,202
Share of accumulated profits due* HKD26,875,781
* Includes shareholder's equity of HKD50,000.

3 of 12 9733579
KD-131

The financial report [Tag 6] shows that dividends of HKD40,000,000 were


paid in 2007/2008 and the 69% the applicant is entitled to come to
HKD27,600,000.
As sole director the applicant received all director's fees paid in 2007/2008
and the financial report shows these to have been HKD30,682,202.
Finaliy, the statements show accumulated profits to be HKD38,900,408 of
which the applicant is entitled to 69% which equates to HKD26,841,282.
This figure differs slightly from the figure in Tag 5 as shareholders equity
has not been included in the financial statements figure.

However, as noted apart from the financial statements, there is no other


evidence of the company's income or profitability and no other evidence
that the applicant did receive the income from the company that he
claimed,

3,3 Further action


On 17 June 2010 a letter [Tag 15] was sent to the applicant requesting
further information ih relation to his lawful earning Of his nominated
' Investment funds.

After an extension of time was requested and granted, the agent has
responded [Tag 19] and provided the following supporting documents:
Tag 23
The applicant's Hong Kong Inland Revenue Department (IRD) tax
assessments for 2007/08 and 2008/09. These show the applicant declared
earnings of HKDS,241,506 in 2007/08 and HKD7,022,744 in 2008/09. He
paid tax of HKD504,55S in 2007/08 and HKD1,045,411 in 2008/09.
Tag 24
The applicant’s company Megaupload Ltd Hong Kong Inland Revenue
Department (IRD) tax assessments for 2007/08 and 2008/09. These show
the company declared assessable profits of HKDS,319,343 in 2007/08 and
HKD10,546,754 in 2008/09. The company paid tax of HKD1,430,885 in
20D7/08 and HKD1,740,214 in 2008/09.
Tag 27
A letter dated 09 September 20,10 from the applicant's accountants in
Hong Kong, Lam &. Chui CPA Ltd. This letter comments op the business
financial statements and the tax liability in Hong Kong and can be
summansed as follows:
• The applicant's Director's remuneration lyom Megaupload is subject
to tax
• The applicant's dividend income is exempt from tax
• Of the total director's r’emuneratlon of HKD30,682,202 for 2007 and
2008, HKD19,898,402 is a housing subsidy and not all of thjs
subsidy is taxable.
• The applicant's director's salary in 2007 and 2008 (HKD4,953,500
and HKD6,384,313) was declared for tax,
° Regarding Megauptoad's profits, Hong Kong IRD has agreed that
only 22.5,8815% of the profits are deemed to be onshore profits and
subject to Hong Kong profits tax.

3.4 Assessment of all documents provided

4 of 12 973357$
KD-132

Based on the documents provided the applicant is the soie director and a
69% shareholder of Megaupload Ltd. This would entitle the applicant to
have received the following Income from the company in 2007 and 2008;
* As Director the applicant received the sum of HKD30,682,202
(Including housing aliowance) in 2007 and 2008.
* In 2007 and 2008 a total of HKD40 million was paid out in dividends
and as a 69% shareholder the applicant would have received
HKD27,600,000.

Additionally, the applicant, as a 69% shareholder is entitled to 69% of the


retained profits of HKD38,900,408 which equates to HKD26,841,281.

In total for 2007 and 2008 the applicant has obtained income from
Megaupload totalling HKD58,282,202 and has ownership of retained profits
totalling HKD26,841,281, This is equivalent to NZD14,742,094.

3.5 Conclusion
The applicant has provided credible documents to demonstrate that his
company (in which he Is a 69% shareholder) has lawfully earned sufficient
income and profits to pay the applicant over NZD14 million in 2’007 and
2008,
This level of income earned by the applicant satisfies me that he has
iawfully acquired his nominated investment funds consisting of USDIO
mlifion on deposit with Citibank Hong Kong.

4^0; Health
The pa's medicals were referred to the MA on 09 June 2010. All other
applicants are considered to have an acceptable standard of health for the
purpose of residence. .
The PA's medicals were received back from the MA on 28 June with a
request for further tests to be done.

A read of the medical certificate shows the following comment from the
examining doctor: ^
"Patient would not ptovide a urine sample in the clinic. A sample was sent
on a later date from his home. Identity of supplier could not be verified.
The sample tested as negative for pfatein, sugar and blood/'

In light of the above comment has been requested by e-mail from RICH
before going back to the applicant with further requests. RICH have ^
advised to refer the medicals back to the MA noting the refusal to provide
a sample and asking for comment.

The medicals have been referred back to the MA who has responded with
an updated list of additionai tests required. This has been relayed by letter
to the agent.

The additional medical tests requested have been received on 27


September, however in his accompanying submission [Tag 19] the agent

Jofl2 973357D
KD-133

notes that the applicant has refused to do the Glucose tolerance test
requested by the MA.

On 06 October the applicant's medicals were referred back to the MA with


the additional tests results provided. The MA was also advised of the
applicant's refusal to undergo the Glucose tolerance test. On 20 October
the MA returned the medicals with a request for further Information [Tag
33], This request was relayed to the agent [Tag 34] and on 22 October
the agent advised by e-mail [Tag 35] that the applicant would not be
providing any further medical information.

On 22 October the medicals and the applicant's response were


electronically sent back to the MA who responded on 27 October [Tag 39].
The MA has provided the opinion that he considers the applicant is likely to
have an acceptable standard of health. Additionally the MA has
commented as follows:

'This applicant declined further investigation. He has a high BMI ~ glucose


■ intolerant, hypertensive and genitalia not examined."

I have now proceeded to determine whether the applicant has an


acceptable standard of health for the purpose of residence as set out in
policy at A4.10,

I note the applicant has refused to undergo a glucose tolerance test and to
have his genitalia examined. The MA has noted the applicant is glucose
intolerant and hypertensive. However, notwithstanding the above, the MA
is of the opinion that the applicant is likely to have an acceptable standard
of health for the purpose of residence.

I have also noted that In the medicals there are no indications the
applicant is likely to be a danger to public health [A4.10(b)(1)], or likely to
impose significant costs or demands on New Zealand's health services
iA4.10(b)(ii)]. Additionally, there are no indications that the applicant has
any of the medical conditions set out In Appendix 10.

I am satisfied that the applicant is quite capable of undertaking the work


(Investment activity) on the basis of which he is applying for his visa and
therefore that he meets A4.10(b)(iii).

To sum up, 1 can find no indications that the applicant does not meet the
good health requirements in A4.10 and this also is the opinion of the
medical assessor. Based on these two factors I am therefore satisfied that
the applicant has an acceptable standard of health for the purpose of
residence in terms of the policy at A4.10,

BJ3.b,l Hesiif] and character tvq'ulrem'Bats •


Farsn appllc^don to be approved uiKfsr the Investor i Category:

! the principal applicant and family members Muded Irrthe application must meet health end character
requirements (see A4 end AS}.. ■

(5 of 12 9733S79
KD-134

5.0: Character
5.1 Police certificates
In his residence application form the applicant has declared that he was
born In Germany in 1974 and lived there until 2001. From 2001 onwards
he has lived in Hong Kong but is now a citizen of Finland.

The PA requires police certificates from Finland, Germany and Hong Kong.
The spouse requires police certificates from the Philippines and Hong Kong.
The children are under 17 years of age. ,

The following police certificates have been provided by the applicants:


PA;
A dear Finnish police certificate dated 23 November 2009 in the
names of Kim Tim Dim Vestor/Kim Jim Tim Schmitz [Tag P/C]
A dear Hong Kong police certificate dated 22 January 2010 in the
name of Mr. Kim Tim Jim VESTOR [Tag P/C].
A photocopy of a dear Finnish police certificate dated 23 September
2010 in the names of Kim Schmitz and Kim Dotcom [Tag 20]
A dear German police certificate dated 06 August 2010 in the name
of Kim Schmitz [Tag 25] '
A dear Finnish police certificate dated 23 September 2010 In the
names of Kim Dotcom (Schmitz) [Tag 31] .

SA:
A dear Philippine police certifcate dated 29 December 2009 In the
names of Mona Verga Dotcom/Mona Aquino Verga [Tag P/C]
A clear Hong Kong police certificate dated 22 January 2010 in the
name of Ms. Mona Verga DOTCOM [Tag P/C]

5.2 Character issue


In his residence application [Tag 3] the applicant declared two convictions
in Germany. The f rst conviction was a "2 year suspended sentence" for
computer hacking ;lnl994. The second conviction was a "1 year and 8
months suspended sentence and 100,000 Euro fine" for insider trading in
2001.

In addition it has been alleged in the media that the applicant was
deported from Thailand in January 2002.

If the above offences and convictions are correct the 1994 conviction
would place the applicant under character policy at A5.25(c) as a person
normally ineligible for a residence permit unless granted a character
waiver.

The 2001 conviction and the 2002 deportation would both place the
applicant under character policy at A5.20(b)(2) and A5.20(b)(4)
respectively as a person ineligible for a residence visa or permit.

In relation to the deportation question, enquiries were initiated with the


Thailand authorities and they have responded [Tag 16] advising that their
records do not show the applicant was deported from Thailand. They have

7 of 12 9733 S79
KD-135

also stated that despite their records it could be possible that the applicant
was deported from Thailand but there is no record of it if it did occur.

In light of the lack of evidence regarding a deportation from Thailand I


have not given any further consideration to this allegation.

As regards the applicant's two declared convictions in Germany, he has


now provided a German police certificate [Tag 25]. This certificate In the
name of Kim Schmitz shows no convictions.

The applicant has also provided a letter [Tag 21] from the solicitor in
Germany who acted for the applicant in the matter of his two declared
convictions. The solicitor advises that the applicant was sentenced In 1998
to 2 years on probation for cornputer hacking that had been committed
several years prior. In 2003 the applicant was sentenced for breach of
trust and insider trading in 2001 to a further 2 years on probation. The
solicitor also confirmed that In accordance with German law these offences
have been remitted and removed from his record.

There is therefore no official confirmation of the applicant's convictions.


The only evidence of these convictions is the applicant's own admissions
and the letter [Tag 21] from the applicant's solicitor in Germany,

I consider the solicitor's letter is acceptable evidence of the offences but


the letter states the applicant was placed op probation (and fined) but
makes no mention of any sentence to a term of imprisonment.

Therefore it is not clear from the solicitor's letter whether or not character
policy at A5.20 applies as it is not clear whether he has been sentenced to
a term of imprisonment for 12 months or more in the last 10 years.

There is also the possibility that the applicant may have a further
conviction he has not declared, although this it not clear.

The applicant has declared two convictions. The first was a ”2 year
suspended sentence" for computer hacking inl994. The second was a "1
year and 8 months suspended sentence and 100,000 Euro fine" for insider
trading In 2001. .

The applicant's German solicitor has given details of two convictions in


which he represented the applicant. The solicitor advises that the
applicant was sentenced In 1998 to 2 years on probation for computer
hacking that had been committed several years prior, in 2003 the
applicant was sentenced for breach of trust and insider trading in 2001 to a
further 2 years on probation.

The details from the soiidtor do not match with the details from the
applicant in reJation to the second offence.

However, in undertaking background checks [Tag 17] Infofmatiorii


(unconfirmed) was found that indicated the applicant had been convicted
as follows:

8 of 12 9733579
KD-136

Mar 1998 Sentenced to two years on probation for computer fraud.


??? 2002 Sentenced to one year and eight months probation and a
EUR100,000 fine for insider trading in 2001.
Nov 2003 Sentenced to two years on -probation-for embez2lement
committed In 2001 in relation to an unsecured loan from
a company named Monkey AG.

On 07 October 2010 a letter [Tag 28] was sent to the agent asking for
further details on the applicant's convictions and sentences. On 15
October 2010 a response was received from the agent confirming that in
2003 the applicant was convicted for Insider trading and breach of trust
and sentenced to two years imprisonment (deferred), placed on probation
and fined EUR10D,000.

The above-2003 conviction places the applicant under character policy at


A5.20(b)(2) as a person ineligible for a residence visa or permit unless
granted a special direction under section 7(3)(a)(il) of the Immigration Act
1987 pursuant to policy at A5.20(a)(li),

An assessment of whether or not to grant a special direction has been


undertaken and is attached to this report. The result of that assessment
has been that a special direction under section 7(3}(a)(ii) of the .
Immigration Act 1987 authorising the issue of a residence visa/permit has
been given to the applicant.
As all other applicants in this application meet character policy, all
character issues relating to this appiication have now been resolved.

/ the m.-eppncatm musl msimith .


requiremenl^-(sefA4aiidAp):. ‘ ' ' TV; t ' I ' " k '
.r,.

6.0: Partnership [R2.1.10]


The applicants Were married in Hong Kong on 10 July 2009, They have
had two children together. A reference has also been provided.

I am satisfied that the PA and his spouse meet the partnership


requirements.

7.0: Verifica tion and Risk prafUing


On 07 October 2010 an e-mail [Tag 29] was sent to INZ Hong Kong
requesting verification of the annual return of Megaupload limited to the
Companies Office [Tag 9 ] and the applicant's Hong Kong tax return for
2008 [Tag 23],

An initial response [Tag 37] was received from INZ Hong Kong on 26
October, The tax returns cannot be verified by a third party and the
request must come from the applicant Therefore a request [Tag 37] was
made to INZ Hong Kong to instead verify the accountant's letter [Tag 27].
The accounting firm itself’has been checked [Tag 36] and found to be a
practising and licensed public accountancy firm in Hong Kong.

9 of 12 9733379
KD-137

■ INZ Hong Kong has now contacted the accounting firm and verified the
letter as authentic [Tag 38].

INZ Hong Kong has now also confirmed [Tag 41] that they have been to
the Hong Kong Companies Registry and retrieved a copy of the filed
Megaupload Limited annual return for the 2009 year. This document
shows the applicant as the sole director of the company and (through his
company Vestor Limited) as a 69% shareholder in Megaupload Limited.
Additionally, the annual return to the Hong Kong Companies Registry was ^
signed by the applicant as company director. \

Conclusion
There is a great deal of information available about this applicant on the
internet and in the media. Much of this information is negative in nature.

However, the applicant has provided clear police certificates and has
declared convictions that no longer appear on his police record.

The applicant has provided documents that are on face credible evidence
demonstrating his business experience and funds acquisition. Verification
conducted has confirmed the genuineness of a selection of those .
documents.

I have given careful consideration to the unfavourable material about the


applicant on the internet and in the media; however I have found no
credible evidence that would substantiate any of that materia!.

Based on the credibility of the documents the applicant has provided, the
results of the verifications done and the clear police certificates provided, I
am satisfied that this application meets policy requirements, has an
acceptable risk factor and can now be approved in principle without
recourse to further verification action.

8.0: Other Issues


s.i Name changes
The applicants have had several name changes and have provided
documents to evidence those changes. Details are as follows;
PA:
Tag B/C
Birth certificate shows birth name as Kim SCHMITZ
Tag M/C
Marriage certificate dated 10 July 2009 Shows name as Kim Tim Jim
VESTOR .
Tag Name change
Finnish name change certificate shows names as Kim SCHMITZ to 02
February 2005, Kim Tim Jim SCHMITZ to 03 June 2005, Kim Tim Jim
VESTOR to 10 July 2009, Kim Jim Tim DOTCOM to 11 February 2010 and
Kim DOTCOM from 11 February 2010.

Based on the above, documents the applicant's names and the periods of
time those names were used for can be summarised as follows:

10 of 12 S733519
KD-138

21 Jan 1974 02 Feb 2005 Kim SCHMITZ


02 Feb 2005 03 Jun 2005 Kim Tim Jim SCHMITZ
03 Jun 2005 10 Juj 2009 Kim Tim Jim VESTOR
10 Ju( 2009 11 Feb 2010 Kim Tim Jim DOTCOM
11 Feb 2010 To dale Kim DOTCOM
SA:
Birth certificate shows birth name as Mona Aquino VERGA
Marriage certificate dated 10 July 2009 shows name as Mona Veroa
DOTCOM

8.2 Custody of child tR2.1.45]


The PA was previously married and Is divorced from his first wife [Tag
Divorce]. The PA was granted joint custody of his daughter, then known
as Kaylo Tlffariy Vestor. The daughter Is now known as Kayio Dotcom [Tag
Name change]. The daughter's natural mother has consented [Tag
! Custody] to her daughter living permanently in New Zealand with the PA,

The custody document [Tag Divorce] provides that the child cart only be
removed frorn Hong Kong by a prior court order or with written permission
of the other parent, provided the child does not grow up or attend schools
in the Philippines.

The applicant has provided [Tag Custody] a sworn affidavit from the
mother that she consents to the child being taken to live permanently in
New Zealand by the PA.

I am satisfied that the PA has the lawful right to bring his daughter to live
permanently in New Zealand.
-~1
w I
VCS)^

U of 12 9733579
KD-139

9.0: Summary
The applicant has the necessary investrnent funds to be approved under
the Investori Category, AH applicants also meet the health requirements
of the policy, The applicant has been granted a special direction under
section 7(3)(a){ii) of the Immigration Act 1987 In respect of his criminal
convictions and all other applicants meet character requirements.
J have therefore approved this application in prindpie.

Decision taken APPROVE

Signed Signed

Chris Biggs Name 2PC : Gareth Grigg


Business Migration Specialist Branch Manager
Date Friday, 29 October 2010 Date Ot/u/ZoV.0

Comments
!

12 of 12 9733579
KD-140

■ .21 Jan 1974 02 Feb 2005 . Kim SCHMITZ


• . 02 Feb 20D5 03Jun,2005 ‘ ......Kim Ttm JlnrSGHMlTZ
■ OSJunZOOS ■10 JuU009 Kim Tim Jim VESTOR
■ ■ 10Jui2009 • 11 Feb 2010 Kim Tim Jim dOTtOM .
■11 Feb, 2010 ■ To date-. . . Kim DOTCOM ■

SAi' . .
■- B^rth eertificate shows birth name as Moria Aquino VERGA .■
■- Marriage certificate dated 10 July 2009 shows name as Mona Verga
, ■DOTCOM ' ,■ ■ . ■ ■ , ■ ■ •
S,2 Custody of child [R2.1.45J ' ‘ ■ ,
The PA was previously married and is divorced from his -Rrst-Vi/lfe' [Tag’
■ Divorce]. The PA was granted'joint custody of his daughter^ then known ’
as Kaylo Tiffeny Veston The daughter is-now known as Kaylo Dotcorn [Tag ,
Name change]. The daughter's natural mother has consented [Tag . ■
■■ ‘ Custody] to her daughter living permanently in New Zealand with the PA.
J. ' .
- The custody document [Tag Divorce] provides that the child can'oniy^be
removed from Hong Kong by a prior court order or with written perniissSoh
■' of the other parent^ provided the child does not grow up or attend schools •
in the Philippine?,- . ' '
• The applicant has provided [Tag Custody] a sworn affidavit from the
. • mother that she consents to the child being, taken to live permanently In
■ New-Zeaiand by the PA. .. .. ‘ ' ‘
l am satisfied that the PA has the Jawfuf Tight to bring his daughter to live
■ permBnently In Mew Zealand. . - '

I ■ 8.4 Possibte deferral of application . ...


- Advice has been, received that the FBI has an .Interest in pursuing an. ■■•
investigation into the applicant because of his ownership of the company
' ■ Megaupload Ltd. It would appear that the interest relates to the'alleged
' provision .of pirated digital content by Megaupload Ltd, ' ’
■ Policy at A5„30 has provision for applications to be deferred for.up to six ■ ■ •
•' ■ months in certain prescribed circumstances. Those circumstancea in the
policy [A5;30CbXO to (iii)] that could possibly apply-to the applicant are as
■ follows:' , ■ ■ ’ ' ■ .

, i. has been charged with any offence which, on conviction would make .
■ . ■ either A5.2Q or A5.25fal to ffl aopivto that applicant, or
_ 'if. is under investigation for such ah offence,'or ' ^
,, , iii. is wanted for questioning about such an offence; or......, ' .i.

11 of 12
KD-141

9.0; Summary
The applicant has the necessary investment funds to be approved under
the Investor 1 Category, AM applicants also meet the health requirements
of the policy. The applicant has been granted a special direction under
section 7(3)(a){ii} of the Immigration Act 1987 in respect of his criminal
convictions and al! other applicants meet character requirements.

I have therefore approved this application in principle.

Decision taken APPROVE

Signed Signed

Chris Biggs Marne 2PC : Gareth Grigg


Business Migration Specialist Branch Manager
Date Friday, 29 October 2010 Date 0t/tv/2^LO

Comments

12of32 9733379
KD-142

The' Information available on this- matter is simply a general comment and .


does not indicate that the applicant has been charged y/lth any alleged -.
offences^ that he'Is actually uh-der-investlgatiorrfor any-alieged -offences or -
that he Is wanted for questioning about atiy alleged-offences. .
. It is therefore -my opinion that the pojicy relating to the deferrel. 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 In the policy. .

SiTimnarir . ■
. ■ The applicant has the necessary investment funds to be approved under .
the Investor 1 Category. ■ All applicants also meet the health requirements '■ .
. of the policy. The applicant has. been granted a special direction, under ■
section 7(3)Ca)CiI) 6f the Immigration Act 1987 in respect of.his criminal...
convictions-and ali other applicants meet character requirements.- . • .
■ I have therefore approved this application in principle. ■ ' - '

(
Decision taken ■ APPROVE

• ■ ■ Signed
Signed' ' '

Chris Biggs - . ’ . . -Name 2PC . ; ,' Gareth ©rigg,- •


Business Nligration Specialist Branch Manager , ,
■ Date Friday/29 October 2010 Date 0\l\\[2£>\.0

Comments
! .

12 Of 12
KD-143

9.0: Summary
The applicant has the necessary investment funds to be approved under
the Investor 1 Category. All applicants also meet the health requirements
of the policy. The applicant has been granted a special direction under
section 7(3Ka)(ii) of the Immigration Act 1987 in respect of his criminal
convictions and ail other applicants meet character requirements,

I-
I have therefore approved this application in principle.

■: '

Decision taken APPROVE

Signed Signed

Chris Biggs Name 2PC ; Gareth Grigg


Business Migration Specialist Branch Manager
Date Friday, 29 October 2010 - Date Oi/u/2:clo

Comments
i

12 Of 12 9733579
/I
/ '■ :i KD-144
Ci|3! \'-Vy. DDICOMfile 1!

H- t

muit i
est t
‘ «

c; ?

IS
r :»r

c:
c;
Qm\ ^

fi:! V’
E! 3
*3! ;■

■a .

or;
«i: ^

*.
Igards

jelMcMorran

:eclwe Sergeant
anised & Ftnandaf Crime Agency New Zealartd (OFCANZ)
ce National Headquarters
Molesworth Street
(.BOX 3017
^ '

V;.'

i
1513 KD-145
■ f' >1

Wellington, New Zealand it

Telephone Direct Phone


- . t-'*
ntact details
*


:i*a»p /■

..
>'1

.. r‘ '.r

1
'■■*-■

;
r.
'-1

'.V *- r
*-V‘
-

‘I'rV-i' 4
f •

.
%: -'•. »Slpiil ,
I

i • '.
:

siiiiii
I

•:«
i'.'-
f'
•-

a-m...
liMMii . ;■' C:-'■ fC.

1;
: J.
i

col
y

COJ ■■■■'■ ■ ■•'-■'A

.;■

i # I

i • *• ■.
■ V
■■■ V ■
>• -
t
V'
■ f - t- ■■

. r.; 1 ■ .( ■ ■ 4
V ■ •,

'I
■•
•;

If 1
m
KD-146

NEW Zealand
POLICE

Operation Grey.
Police National Headquarters
180 Molesworth Street, Thorndon
29 August 2013 Wellington, 6011

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

GREEN PARTY COMPLAINT THAT THE GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATION SECURITY


BUREAU (GCSB) ILLEGALY INTERCEPTED PRIVATE COMMUNICATIONS- KIM
DOTCOM AND BRAM VAN DER KOLK; CRIMES ACT 1961, SECTION 216B ’

INTRODUCTION

1. Following evidence at a judicial review hearing in 2012 it was revealed that the
Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) was involved in the
surveillance of Kim Dotcom and Bram van der Kolk. The Inspector General
Intelligence and Security (IGiS) was asked by the Prime Minister to report on the
matter.

2. In his letter to the Prime Minister dated 27 September 2012, Hon Paul Neazor, the
IGiS, determined that the GCSB had intercepted communications of Dotcom, believing
he was a foreign person for the purposes of their Act. He subsequently concluded that
the actions of GCSB were not lawful.

3. Russel Norman MP made a complaint to the Police Commissioner In respect of the


“illegal actions" suggesting they were a breach of section 216B of the Crimes Act 1961.
The Police Commissioner directed that this investigation was to be undertaken to
determine if any person could be found to be criminally liable.

THE LAW

Section 216B(1) of the Crimes Act 1961 sets out the following offence:

Subject to subsections (2) to (5), every one is liable to imprisonment for a term
not exceeding 2 years who intentionaliy intercepts any private communication by
means of an interception device.

4. Subsection 2(b)(iiia) of section 216B of the Crimes Act provides an exception to any
breach of subsection (1) if the interception is carried out in accordance with the GCSB
Act 2003.

1
KD-147 ^

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply where the person intercepting the
private communication—

(a) Is a party to that private communication; or

(b) Does so pursuant to, and in accordance with the terms of, any
authority conferred on him or her by or under—

(0 the Search and Surveillance Act 2012; or

(iii) The New Zealand Security intelligence Service Act 1969;


or
(iiia) the Government Communications Security Bureau Act
2003; or

(v) The International Terrorism {Emergency Powers) Act


1987,

5. For the purposes of this investigation it has been accepted that the interception against
Dotcom and van der Kolk were interceptions against New Zealand residents.
Accordingly, the interception did not fall within the provisions of section 216B 2(b)(itia)
and therefore does not appiy.

6. The relevant definitions of intercept, interception device and private communication as


defined by the Crimes Act 1961 have been considered.

7. i have also considered section 216C of the Crimes Act. This section prohibits
disclosure of unlawfully intercepted communications. No disclosures of intercepted
communications in breach of section 216C were established.

8. Section 107 of the Crimes Act was also considered. This provision is a genera!
offence creating provision which applies when no other penalty is provided. No
penalty Is provided for a breach of section 14 of the GCSB Act. There is a
requirement that the act is intentional. The offence reads;

Everyone is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year who,
without lawful excuse, contravenes any enactment by wilfully doing any act
which it forbids, or by wilfully omitting to do any act which it requires to be
done.
9. The investigation identified that intent applies to all of the elements of an offence
against section 216B of the Crimes Act 1961. Any employee who acts in good faith
and without culpable ignorance or negligence is protected from criminal prosecution. A
person who honestly but mistakenly believes that the interception was done pursuant
to, and in accordance with the terms of, the relevant statutory authority will not be
criminally liable,

10. Parlies and attempts as they related to section 216B were also considered.

2
KD-148
Z"

THE INVESTIGATION

11. This investigalion was undertaken without the use of production orders or search
warrants. The cooperation of the individuals and organisations in reviewing documents
was sought and received.

12. A Police group, the Organised and Financial Crime Agency of New Zealand (OFCANZ)
was delegated the function of responding to a request for assistance from the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI), to extradite Dotcom and others to the United States of
America to face charges in respect of criminal breaches of copy-right. This operation
was named Task Force Debut {TF Debut).

13. OFCANZ hosted a meeting on the 14th of December 2011 at Police National
Headquarters (PNHQ) to brief other government agencies about the OFCANZ
operation to arrest Dotcom and others on extradition warrants. Ail of the OFCANZ staff
members who either attended the meeting or had any dealings with GCSB staff in
relation to TF Debut were interviewed. Staff from other government agencies that
attended the meeting were also interviewed.

14. Immigration New Zealand staff were interviewed and confirmed that no inquiry was
made with them by GCSB in respect of the immigration status of Dotcom or van der
Kolk,

15. Two GCSB staff members attended the 14 December meeting at PNHQ.

16. Following the meeting the two GCSB staff members who attended, briefed their GCSB
managers and sought legal advice

17

18. The investigation established that-the Request for Information (RFj) was prepared by
one of the GCSB staff members who attended the meeting. This was signed by
Detective Sergeant McMorran on behalf of Detective Inspector Wormald at about 6pm
on Friday the 16lh of December 2011 at the GCSB buiiding.

19. Normally the RFi is processed by a designated individual at GCSB, but on this
occasion this did not happen. The person the RFI was addressed to did not
see or
authorise 11 before the GCSB began working on the named targets. The person who
processed the RFI was one of the GCSB staff members who attended the 14
December briefing. The person declined to be interviewed.

20. Ten current or past GCSB staff were interviewed during the investigation. Three current
GCSB staff declined to be interviewed. One GCSB staff member who had left the
country prior to the commencement of the investigation was not contacted or asked for
an interview. Ail of the interviews conducted were done in a classified environment and
format.

21. Classified GCSB documents were viewed and analysed as part of the investigation. All
relevant documents were exhibited and are held in a secure area at GCS8,

22. The investigation could find no evidence that any employee of GCSB made or caused
to be made any inquiry about the targets' immigration status. Neither was the
immigration status of any of the targets raised with GCSB in house legal advisor until
after the search warrants had been executed.

3
KD-149

23. Because of the origin of the data supplied to GCSB it could not be established to an
evidential standard whether the data was gathered at rest or in transit. The collection
of data in transit is needed to satisfy the Crimes Act legal definition of intercept, R v
Cox-

24. All of the GCSB staff interviewed expressed the firm belief that they were acting in
accordance with their legislation. They believed they were legally entitled to target
Dotcom and van der Kolk by virtue of their immigration status,

25. GCSB staff were mistaken in their understanding of the Immigration Act 2009 and how
it related to the GCSB Act. They believed that Dotcom and van der Kolk had not fully
completed all of the requirements necessary to become permanent residents and that
they were therefore entitled to intercept their communications and that their actions
were authorised under the GCSB legislation.

26. This belief came about because the GCSB legal advisor was not conversant with the
changes in the Immigration Act 2009 that came into force in November 2010 or how
the changes affected the GCSB's capability to intercept persons who hold resident’s
visas pursuant to their own enactment.

THE FACTS

27. immediately following the December 14 meeting, Wormald met with two GCSB staff
members and discussed what assistance GCSB could provide.

28. The information provided to GCSB immediately following the meeting contained a
number of references to the residential status of Dotcom and van der Kolk. OFCANZ
also possessed a subject profile of Dotcom which correctly Identified him as about to
become the holder of a New Zealand resident’s visa. This profile was prepared in
November 2010 a year before the 14 December PNHQ meeting. This profile was not
provided to GCSB,

29. initially there was confict between Wormaid and GCSB about the discussion Wormald
had with GCSB staff on the 14“’ of December 2011. However three court documents
filed on behalf of GCSB. each successive document softening their position, and an
interview with one of the GCSB staff members present confirmed that he did not fully
read the OFCANZ documents provided and that GCSB had a mistaken belief of the
Immigration Act and how it related to the GCSB Act. This shift in position subsequently
led to the acknowledgment that Wormald's account of the discussion "may well be
right," Given that, in the absence of anything to the contrary from the other GCSB
member who was present at this meeting the account provided by Wormaid is
accepted.

30. There are two inferences that can be taken from this shift in position. The first is that
the GCSB member has not told the truth in order to protect his position and
professional reputation in respect of his involvement with TF Debut. The second is that
as he has become aware of systemic and institutional GCSB failings he has changed
his position. His documented accounts then reflected this. The investigation accepts
the position that he has changed his account to reflect the new information he was
becoming aware of.

31. It was the view of the investigation that OFCANZ should have provided more detailed
information to GCSB following the first meeting, in particuiar the subject profile, it is
important to note however that the understanding that GCSB had of the Immigration
Act as it related to the GCSB Act was fundamentally flawed, Even if this profile had
been provided GCSB are likely to have made the same mistaken assessment based
KD-150

on (heir then misunderstanding of the relevant legislative provisions. This is supported


by (he review of the legality of the GCSB targeting following receipt of the Immigration
file of Dotcom and van der Kolk from OFCANZ after the February 2012 debrief. Even at
that time GCSB still mistakenly determined (hey were entitled to assist OFCANZ in the
manner that they had.

32. No interception warrant had been sought by OFCANZ, as there was no evidential
foundation to legally obtain a warrant.

33. Analysis of the data provided to the investigation established that only one
communication relating to Dotcom had been intercepted in breach of the provisions of
section 216B of the Crimes Act 1961,

34. GCSB gave an assurance and it was confirmed by the investigation that this
communication contained no content.

36. It was also established that other communications were obtained that were considered
to have been intercepted by GCSB’s New Zealand based resources. These
communications were lawfully intercepted in accordance with the GCSB Act. Following
a system audit GCSB gave assurances that none of these communications
were
reviewed or analysed by GCSB staff as part of TF Debut.

36. None of the content of the New Zealand intercepted communication formed part of the
nine information reports that was passed to OFCANZ.

37. For the remainder of the data collected by GCSB the investigation could not establish
whether it was gathered at rest or in transit when it was acquired. GCSB could not
provide the investigation with this information as they did not have it.

ANALYSIS

38. It vras established that the GCSB in conducting the intercept operation breached
Section 216B in that they intercepted the private communication of a New Zealand
resident visa holder. This is in reference to the one communication of Dotcom obtained
in contravention to section 216B of the Crimes Act.

39. All other data acquired by GCSB in support of the RFi from OFCANZ. did not reach the
evidential standard necessary to establish that it was intercepted as defined by the
Crimes Act or ft was obtained lawfully,

40. it is necessary that a criminal intent be established for each element of section 216B
before any liability could be found, it was apparent at interview that all of the GCSB
staff believed that their actions in intercepting the communications were justified and
lawful.

41. In the view of the investigation no GCSB staff could be reasonably held liable in
respect of section 216B because of their genuinely held but mistaken belief that they
were legally entitled to undertake the actions they did. Accordingly, it could not be
established that they had the necessary criminal intent.

42. Section 107 of the Crimes Act 1961 was considered. This offence provides a penalty
for any offence that does not carry a penalty. Section 14 of the GCSB Act does not
carry any penalty. Again, this provision requires that a criminal intent would need to be
established. For the same reasons as set out above, it was concluded that no GCSB
staff could be held liable for a prosecution under this provision as no criminal intent
could be established.
5
KD-151

43 The investigation could find no evidence that prior to the February 2012 debrief, any
employee of GCSB made or caused to be made any inquiry about the immigration
status of Dotcom or van der Kolk, despite Wormald expressing concerns about whether
GCSB could target Dotcom and van der Kolk.

CONCLUSION

44- OFCANZ staff cannot be considered as being culpable for any criminal offending.

45. In good faith they provided GCSB with information and verba! advice in respect of the
TF Debut targets. There was sufficient detail in the information they provided to
warrant GCSB to inquire further. However GCSB’s flawed interpretation of the
immigration Act persuaded them not to pursue this line of inquiry.

46. OFCANZ however had more accurate and detailed information that they should have
provided GCSB, but they didn’t.

47. GCSB had an incorrect understanding of the Immigration Act 2009 and how it related
to the GCSB Act. That mistaken understanding caused them not to question the true
immigration status of Dotcom and van der Kolk.

48. GCSB did not follow their own internal processes in actioning the request for
information from OFCANZ.

49. GCSB staff did commit the act prohibited by section 216B of the Crimes Act 1961 but
did not have the necessary intent to satisfy the elements of the offence and be
considered criminally liable,

50. The GCSB did intercept a communication of Dotcom, a permanent resident of New
Zealand. Systemic and institutional issues existed within GCSB that allowed the
targeting of Dotcom and van der Kolk to progress to the point it did. While the actions
of some of the employees of GCSB may be considered to be incompetent or negligent
they could not be considered criminally liable.

51. The interception that breached section 216B did not form part of the information reports
provided to OFCANZ and there was no consequential breach of section 216C of the
Crimes Act by passing illegally intercepted information to another party.

52. No GCSB staff should be prosecuted in respect of Section 10? of the Crimes Act as it
could not be established that they had the necessary intent.

53. This investigation could find no criminai culpability on the part of any GCSB employee.

54 it is the understanding of the investigation that GCSB have reviewed their policy,
practice and procedures in relation to requests for information or assistance.

RECOMMENDATiONS

55. That no criminal charges be commenced against any person in respect of the alleged
breach of Sections 216B, 216C and 10? of the Crimes Act 1961.

56. That Poiice operations requiring GCSB assistance, should request that assistance
through a designated Liaison Officer based at PNHQ.

6
KD-152

57. That Police develop a template in conjunction with GCSB, for requests for assistance.

58. That Police groups likely to request GCSB assistance or services receive training from
GCSB about the process for requesting that assistance and information as well as the
security requirements,

Peter Read /
Detective Superintendent; Southern

7
KD-153

Jonathan Maitland

From: Jonathan Maitland


Sent: Wednesday, 10 Novemfaer2010 10;47 a.m.
To; ‘Pedro Morgan'
Subject: RE; Kim Dotcom

Hi Pedro,

The additional information will be couriered to you. Just a note, Tags 16 & 17 relate to the same information
as included in your last request so I have not induded them in this pack of information.

regards

Jonathan

Jonathan Maitland
litimigration Manager - Business Migration Branch
" I Department of Labour [ TeTarl Mahi
Level 3 Kordia House, 109 - 125 WIilis Street jPO Box 3705 I Wellington 1 New Zealand
Te(: +64 4 910 5422 1 Fax: +64 4 801 2928
Email; Jonathan,maitland@dol.govt.nz '
Web: wwv/.doi.qovt.nz or www.investmentnow.govt.nz
i. J

From: Pedro Morgan tmaIIto:pmorgan@Iinz,goYt.nz]


Sent: Tuesday, 9 November 2010 4:00 p.m,
To; Pedro Morgan; Jonathan Maitland
Subject: RE: Kim Dotcom

HI Jonathan,

! l
May I also have tags 2j 16, 17 and 18 from the special directiori report please.
L J
Thanks,
’ i:.-'
•: ?
Pedro Morgan - Solicitor
Overseas Investment Office

Land Information New Zealand


Toitu te whenua
160 Lambton Quay
PO Box 5501
Weillngton 6145
New Zealand

D 01: +64 4 462 4463


Fax: -P64 4 460 0111
Ceil phone: +64 21 476 514

pmorgan@linz,govt.nz
www.linz.govt.nz/overseas'investment

23/09/2011
KD-154

www.newzealand.govt.nz

From: Pedro Morgan


Sent: Tuesday, 9 November 2010 9:38 a.m,
To; 'Jonathan Maitiand'
Subject: RE: Kim Dotcom

Thanks Jonathan.

Could we please have copies of the following documents:

.. Tag 3, Tag 16, Tag 17, Tag 21, Tag 25, Tag 28
» A copy of the special direction assessment
Any other tags containing Information relating to character

Also, I note the reference to the FBI's interest. I assume that this information is not known to
Mr Dotcom, Any information you have relating to this would be useful.

Pedro Morgan - Solicitor


Overseas Investment Office
t '

Land Information New Zealand


Toitu te whenua
160 Lambton Quay
PO Box 5501
Wellington 6145
New Zealand

DDI: +64 4 462 4463


Fax: +64 4 460 0111
Cellphone: +64 21 476 514

pmorgan@linz.govt.nz
www.linz.govt.nz/overseas-investment
wWw.newzeaiand.govt.nz

From: Jonathan Maitland [rnailto:Jonathan.Malt]and@dol.govt,nz]


Sent: Tuesday, 9 November 2010 9:17 a.m.
To: David Cooper
Cc: Gareth Grigg; Chris Biggs; Greg Towers; Pedro Morgan
Subject: RE;' Kim'Dotcdin

Hi Pedro,
Please find attached the file summary as requested. Please note, certain parts have been withheld as per
David's request below.

regards

Jonathan

23/09/2011
KD-155

Jonathan Martland
Immigration Manager - Business Migration Branch
Department of Labour | Te Tari Mahi
Level 3 Kordia House, 109 - 125 Willis Street |PO Box 3705 [ Wellington [ New Zealand
Tel: +64 4 910 5422 | Fax: +64 4 801 2928
Email: Jonathan.maitland@dolgovt.nz
Web: www.dol.Qovt.n2 or wwwdnvestmentnow.govtnz

From: David Cooper [mailto;David@MalcolmPaciftc.com]


Sent: Monday, 8 November 2010 6:38 p.m.
To; Jonathan Maitland
Cc: Gareth Grigg; Chris Biggs; Greg Towers; pmorgan@linz..govtnz
Subject; Kim Dotcom
Importance: High

Hello Jonathan
Mr Dotcom Is seeking approval from the Overseas Investment Office (OlO) in respect to several property
purchases,
As part of the OtO process a request has been made by OlO to access Mr Dotcom’s immigration file,

: ‘i
Mr Dotcom consents to OlO having access to his file held by INZ but does not consent to the release of any
medical information in respect to himself or his femily.
Our client expects that the sharing of Information remains confidentia! and only information intended to assist
with the OiO application is released.
We understand that any information released to OIO will not enter the public arena as it contains personal
information sensitive to the applicant and his family.

Regards
David Cooper '
MANAGER (OPERATIONS)

MAl.'t.-Or.Ml'AC’iriL

Maicoim Pacific (Auckland) Limited


Level 12, 49 Symonds Street, Auckland, New Zealand
PO Box 6219, Wellesley Street, Auckland, New Zealand
Ph: 64 9 309 41.87; Fax: 64 9 366 4730
Email: david@malcolmpacifi&.com
Website: www.mafooimpacific.com

NOTICE:
This email and any atlachmenU are confidential. They may contain privileged Information or copyright materia). If you are not an
intended recipient, you should not read, copy, use or disclose Ihe contents vrlthout authorisation and we request you contact us at once
by return email. PSease then delete the emaif and any attachments from your system. We do not accept any liabitlty In connection with
computer viruses, data corruption, delay, interruption, unauihorised access or unauthorised emendment. Any views expressed iri this
email and any attachments do not necessarily reflect the views of Ihe company.

"The information contained in this document is intended only for the addrcs.sce and is not necessarily the views nor tltc
officiai communication of the Department of Labour. All finai/offidal papers which are sent from the Department w.iH be

23/09/2011
KD-156

: ’

sent by iion-electronic means, on appropriate ietteritead, signed by authorised personnel.

This message contains information, which is confidential and may he subject to legal privilege. ^
If you are not the intended recipient, you must not peruse, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this

If you have received this message in error, please notify ns immediately (Phone 0800 665 463 or
infotglinz.govt.nz ) and destroy the original message. ^
LINZ accepts no responsibilitj' for changes to this email, or for any attachments, after its
transmission ftom LINZ.

Thankyou.

r'

f. j

' ■!

23/09/2011
KD-157

Jonathan iVIaltland

From: Jonathan Mailland


Ssnt: Tuesday, 9 November 2010 4:09 p,m.
To; 'Pedro Morgan'
Subject: RE: Kim Dotcom

No problem, I have already sent the first lot of information to you by courier. !t should get to you tomorrow.
0
Jonathan

Jonathan Maitland
Immigration Manager - Business Migration Branch
Department of Labour j TeTari Mahi
Level 3 Kordla House, 109 - 125 Wlllls Street |PO Box 3705 1 Wellington j New Zealand
Tel; +64 4 910 5422 [ Fax; +64 4 801 2928
Email: jonathan.maltland@doi.govt.nz
Web: www.dol.Qovt.nz or www.investmentnow.govt.nz

From: Pedro Morgan [mailtQ:pmorgan@llnz,govt,nz]


Sent; Tuesday, 9 November 2010 4:00 p.m,
Td: Pedro Morgan; Jonathan Maitland
subject; RE: Kfm Dotcom

Hi Jonathan,

May I also have tags 2,16, 17 and 18 from the special direction report please.

Thanks,
Pedro Morgan -• Solicitor
Overseas Investment Office
1
Land Information New Zealand
Toltu te whenua
160 Lambton Quay
PO Box 5501
Wellington 6i45
New Zealand

DDI: +64 4 462 4463


Fax: +64 4 460 0111
Cellphone: +64 21 476 514

pmorgan@linz,govt. nz
www.linz.govtnz/oyerseas-lnvestment
www.newzeaiand, govt.nz

From: Pedro Morgan

23/09/2011
(
KD-158

Sent! Tuesday, 9 November 2010 9:38 a.m


To: 'Jonathan Maitland’
Subject: RE; Kim Dotcom

Thanks Jonathan.

Could we please have copies of the following documents:

» Tag 3, Tag 16, Tag 17, Tag 21, Tag 25, Tag 28
• A copy of the special direction assessment
• Any other tags containing information relating to character

r.
L
Pedro Morgan - Solicitor
Overseas Investment Office
i.7 0)Ch)
Land Information New Zealand 2-7 )
Toitu te whenua
!. 160 Lambton Quay
PO Box 5501
Wellington 6145
New Zealand

DDI: +64 4 462 4463


Pax: +54 4 460 0111
Ceilphone; +64 21 476 514

pmorgan@iin2.goVt.nz
www.linz.govt.nz/overseas-investment
www.new2ealand.govt.nz

From: Jonathan Maitland [mai(to:Jonathan.Maltiand@dol.govt.nz]


1 i
1 Sent! Tuesday, 9 November 2010 9:17 a.m.
i »
To: David Cooper
Cc: Gareth Grlgg; Chris Biggs; Greg Towers; Pedro Morgan
Subject; RE: Kim Dotcom

Hi Pedro,
Please find attached the file summary as requested. Please note, certain parts have been withheld as per
David’s request below.

regards

Jonathan

Jonathan Maitland
immigration Manager - Business Migration Branch
Department of Labour 1 Te Tari Mahi , j
Level 3 Kordia House, 109 - 125 Witlls Street jPO Box 3705 i V/ellington 1 New Zealand

23/09/2011
KD-159

Tel: +64 4 910 5422 | Fax: +64 4 601 2928


Email; Jonathan.maitland@dol.govt.n2
Web: www.do!,Qovt.n2 or www.investmentnow.govt.nz

From; David Cooper [mailto;David@MaIcolmPaciflc.com]


Sent: Monday, 8 November 2010 6:38 p.m,
To; Jonathan Maitland
Cc: Gareth Grigg; Chds Biggs; Greg Towers; pmorgan@llnz.govt,nz
Subject; Kim Dotcom
Irnportance: High

Hello Jonathan
Mr Dotcom is seeking approval from the Overseas Investment Office (010) in respect to several property
purchases.
As part of the 010 process a request has been made by 010 to access Mr Dotcom’s immigration file.

Mr Dotcom consents to OlO having access to his file held by !NZ but does not consent to the release of any
f 4
'"i medical information in respect to himself or his family.
Our client expects that the sharing of information remains confidential and only information intended to assist
with the 010 application is released. '

We understand that any Information released to OiO will not enter the pubfic arena as it contains persohal
information sensitive to the applicant and his family, •

Regards

David Cooper
MANAGER (OPERATIONS)

MAI r.'in.NtPA'Cinc

Malcolm Pacific (Auckland) Limited


kJ Level 12,49 Symonds Street, Auckland, New Zealand
PO Box 6219, Wellesley Street, Auckland, New Zealand
Ph: 64 9 309 4187; Pax: 64 9 366 4730
Email: davidtStmaicoImpacifrc.com
Website: wwW:m3!cDlmDaclfic.com

NOTICE:
This email and any altachmenls era conddenlial. They may coNain privileged Informallgn or copyright material. If you are not an:
inlended recipient, you should not read, copy, use or disolose the contents without autttorisatlon and we request you contact us at once
by return email. Please then delete the email and any atlachments from yoursystern. We do not accapl any llabiniy in connection vvith
computer viruses, data cprruptiCn, delay, Inferruplipn, unauthorised access or unauthorised amendment. Any views expressed in this
email and any attachments do not necessarily reflect the views of the company.

‘The information contained in this document :is intended only for the addressee and is not necessarily the views nor the
ofSciai GommUnicatlpn of the Department of Labour. All final/official papers which are sent from the 'Department will be
sent by tipn-eiectfonto fneans, on appropriate letterhead, sighed by authorised personiie.1,"

This message eonfams information, which is confidential and may be subject to legal privilege.
If you are not the intended recipient, you must not peixise, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this

23/09/2011
KD-160

------ c- ■

message,
If yoii have received this message in error, please notify us ,immediately
. (Phone 0800 665 463 or
info@.!in2.gQvt.nz 1 and destroy the original message.
LINZ accepts no responsibility for changes to this email, or for any attachments, after its
transmission from LINZ.

Thank you. _____ ___

Ct

■ i

r ’

•- ;

23/09/2011
KD-161

Jonathan Maitland

From: Jonathan Maitland


Sent: Tuesday, 9 November 2010 9:60 a.m.
To: 'Pedro Morgan'
Cc: Chris Biggs; Gareth Grigg
Subject: RE: Kim Dotcom

Hi Pedro

No problem, t will aet these done today S couriered over.

Jonathan

Jonathan Maitland
Immigration Manager - Business Migration Branch
Department of Labour I Te Tarl Mahl
Level 3 Kordia House, 109 - 125 WIliis Street [PO Box 3705 \ Wellington ! New Zealand
Tel: +-64 4 910 5422 | Fax: +64 4 801 2928
Email; jonathan.maitland@dol.govtn2 .
Web: wvwv.dQl.gQVt.nz or www.investmentnow.govt.nz

From; Pedro Morgan [mailto:pmorgan@nnz,govt.nz]


Sent; Tuesdayy 9 November 2010 9:38 a.m.
To: Jonathan Maitland
Subject; RE: Kim Dotcom

Thanks Jonathan.

Could we please have copies of the following documents:

a (.... ,) • Tag 3, Tag 16, Tag 17, Tag 21, Tag 25, Tag 28
• A copy of the special direction assessment
• Any other tags containing information relating to character

L i/k/ tdA
Pedro Morgan - Solicitor
Overseas Investment Office

Land Infofrhatlon New Zealand ^7(0 Ch)


Toitu te whenua
160 Lambton Quay
PO Box 5501
Wellington 6145 !
New Zealand

DDI; +64 4 462 4463 I

23/09/2011
KD-162

•>
Fax; +64 4 460 OUl
Cellphone; +64 21 476 514

pmorgan@IInz.govt.n2
www.lin2.g0vt. nz/overseas-Investment
www.newzealand.govt.nz

From: Jonathan Maitland [mailtOiJonathan.MaitiandPdol.govt.nz]


Sent; Tuesday, 9 November 2010 9:17 a.m.
To; David Cooper
Cc: Gareth Grigg; Chris Biggs; Greg Towers; Pedro Morgan
Subject; RE: Kim Dotcom

Hi Pedro,
Please find attached the file summary as requested. Please note, certain parts have been withheld as per
David's request below.

regards

Jonathan

Jonathan Maitland '


Immigration Manager * Business Migration Branch
Department of Labour 1 Te Tari Mahi
Level 3 Kordia House, 109 - 125 Willis Street jPO Box 3705 | Wellington 1 New Zealand
Tel: +64 4 910 5422 1 Fax: +64 4 801 2928
Email: Jonathan.maltland@dohgovt.nz
Web: www.dol.Qovt.nz or v/ww.tnvestmentnow.govt.nz

Frorn: David Cooper [mailto;Davld@Malco!mPacific.com]


■ .}
Sent: Monday, 8 November 2010 6:38 p.rn.
To; Jonathan Maitland
Cc: Gareth Grigg; Chris Biggs; Greg Towers; pmorgan@linz.govt.riZ:
Subject: Kim Dotcom
Importance: High

Hello Jonathan
Mr Dotcom is seeking approval from the Overseas Investment Office (010) in respect to several property
purchases.
As part of the OlO process a request has been made by 010 to access Mr Dotcom's immigration file.

Mr Dotcom consents to OiO having' access to his file held by INZbut does not consent to the release of any
medical information In respect to himself or his family.
Our client expects that the sharing of information remains confidential and only information Intended to assist
with the OIO application is released.
We understand that any information released to OIO will not enter the public arena as it contains personal
information sensitive to the applicant and his family.

23/09/2011
KD-163

Regards

David Cooper
MANAGER (OPERATIONS)

> •k''ce ^ t*tll

Malcolm Paciftc (Auckland) Limited


Level 12, 49 Symonds Street, Auckland, New Zealand
PO Box 6219, Wellesley Street, Auckland, New Zealand
Ph: 64 9 309 4187; Fax; 64 9 366 4730
Email: d3Vid@malco!mpacific,cDhn
Websfte: wViW.malcolniP3clfic.com

MOTICE'
This email and any attachments afe confidential. They may contain prlvtlaged information or copyright material, tfyou are not an.
Intended fectpieni. you should not read, copy, use or disclose the contents without authorisation and vre, request you c.onlacd Us at once
by return email. Please,then delete the email and,any atlachments Trom your system. We do not .accept any liability in connection with
computer vinrses, data corruption, delay, hterniplidn, unauthorised access or unauthorised Bmendment. Any views expressed In this
email and any attachments do not necessarily, reflect the views of .the company,
r i

"The information contained in this document is intended only for tire addressee and is not necessarily the views nor the
official communication of the Department of Labour. All fmai/offmial papers which are seat frora the Department will bo
sent by non-elcctronic means, on appropriate letterhead, signed by authorised ;pErs,(mi!eL"

This message confains information, which is confidential and may be subject to legal privilege.
If you are not the intended recipient, you must not peruse, use, disserninate, distribute or copy this
message. , ,
If you have received this message in error, please notrfy us immediately (Phone 0800 6^5 4d3 or
infofS!liTi?‘..gnvlTiz;) and destroy the origin^ message.
LINZ accepts no responsibility for changes to this email, or for any attachments, afier its
transmission from LINZ.

Thank you.
Li

23/09/2011

!
KD-164

Chris Bigfls

From: Gareth Grigg


Sent; Friday. 11 June 2010 5:16 p.m.
To; Boien Ng;[
Gc: Chris Biggs
3'
Subject: FW: Request for Information from Thailand immigration authorities

Hi Bolen/^

Please see below. Are you able to assist with accessing this information?

This relates to a high profile Investor Plus application which is likely to involve consideration of a Special
Direction under S7 (through previous convictions and possibly also deportation/ removal}.

1 Would be grateful for any assistance you may be able to give regarding this case.

Cheers,
I

I
Gareth Grigg
Branch Manager - Business Migration Branch .
' I Department of Labour | Te Tarl Mahi
• ^ Level 3 Kordia House, 109 - 125 Willis Street iPO Box 3705 | Welilngton 1 Nevr Zealand
Tel: +64 4 914 4310 j Fax: +64 4 801 2928 .
'■ ■ Ema 11 :■ qareth .q rig q .@dgl^oytjn.z
Web; www,doi.aovt.nz

' From 4 May 2010, all immigration advisers (including, those based outside New Zealand) must
, be licensed with the immigration Advisers Authority (JAA). Any adviser who is not licensed and
not exempt will be unable to lawfully provide New Zealand immigration advice or submit
: applications to Immigration New Zealand. Please see the lAA‘s website at www.i3a,gsyt,nz for
more details on how to apply for a licence,
t t

i I
L'J
r
fj
■’.!
From: Chris Biggs '
L; sent!- Friday, lUune 2010 4:04 p.m,
To: Gareth Grigg
Subject: Request for Information from Thailand immigration authorities

Hi Gareth
•* As per our recent discussion ! would like, if possible, to see whether the Thai immigration authorities are ebte
to confirm whether or not one of our investor applicants was deported or removed from Thailand a nd if so by
what authority or lav/ In that country.

The applicant's details are as follows;

Name: Mr. Kim SCHMITZ


DOB: 21 January 1974
Cintry of birth: Kiel, Germany
INZ dient number: No client number under this name.

14/06/2010
KD-165

/ .
/' i’ /
■ ■ Part
Dofcument

Decision required under the Overseas Investm^ Act 2005;, ' Information
'. NeW Zealand
Megastuff Limited / Kim Dotcom - Three applications foV.conse.nt

Date 5 April 2011 •


Priority . High ■
Security Level • . Comniercial: In ' 1041/201020049.
Report/Case Number
Confidence . . 1042/2010’20048 -
1043/201020007

Instructions
,4^
-■ . Action Sought ■

v'
. Associate Minister of
Finance
1. Sigh the attached rriemorandum .
Dei

2. Forwardlhe memorandum and
■ annexure to the Minister .for Land
. Information '■ ■ ■'
Minister for Land 1. Sign the attached memor^dum
Information- 9 April-2011
2. Forward the memorandom a “
annexure to the Ov^fcs i
■ Investment Offfc^^^^

Contact for Telephone Discussions


1
Name Position Telephone . First Contact
Annelies McCjure Manager'
462-4461 (wkl,
KD-166

, Cases 201020048, 201020049 and 201020067- Page 1

MEMORANDUM

Executive Summary:

1. This Ministerial recommendation'report covers three separate but closely related’sensitive land'
applications {Applications 2010200.48,201020049 and 2D1020067K . ■ '
’• Application 20102QQ48: The, relevant land is a large residential property which'is repute
the most expensive private residence in New Zealand ("Coatesville'")'. The applicant is Mr'S
. Dotcom, a successful .internet- entrepreneur residing in Hong Kong. Mr Dotcom is an oversea!
. Person. ■ ■■ ■
;{hj , Application 201020067: The relevant land is a smaller residential property ("tlte
■ adjoins Coatesville-. .The applicant-is’ Megastuff Limited, a New Zealand regisl
owned by Mr Dotcom. Megastuff Limited is an overseas person, .fhe acquiSiticS
IS
■ . conditional upon consent.faeing granted to the acquisition of Coatesville.-
' Application 201020049: The relevant land is a coastal lif 1
i^t Taipa, .
■, - Doubtless Bay ("Vara'Prasada"); The applicant is Megastuff L’li
2.- The purchase price for the three p’rbperties-exc’eeds $’37 million!
3.- The. applicants have
liwegi
i Wany) to acquire, the '

'
properties. The sole shareholder of A Limited is Kngto li
Virgin Islands registered company. Mr Dotcom claims
Kingdom International Ventures Limited. .
m ^ures Limited, a-British,
harehblder and director of- ’

.4. Each of the properties is "sensitive! land". ^^^’nd Vara Prasada are. all non urban
. ■ land and each 'exceeds five hectares {either ^^rtrith associated land), in addition, the '
- Vara Prasada property includes special (aiid (W adjoins an esplanade reserve. .
-5. 'Ministerial consent is required delegated .their,power to the• Overseas
■ Investment Office to make decisio' letoant land includes special land. ■. .
•6. ’ There are matters that ca![ Mr Di^o
considered these rnattp^an^^K
Dotcom is of good char^l^^^^
report., ^
m into question. The Overseas Investment. Office has
that, on balance;’ Ministers can be satisfied that Mr
g^ensive analysis of Mr Dotcom's character forms part of pur

7; - The Overseas 1^ ^tisfied that the benefits of these overseas investments will ’be or -

8:
,
are likely to^^u
The Oversea®
investmen'^^®
m
:tmi
sntifiable.. . . . -
Iffice. recommends that - Ministers grant consent to the proposed

■ Annexor
r Overseas Investment Office on the proposed overseas investment (Report), (including -
1/ice on whathar or not-Mr Dotcom is of good character). :
atlons for consenfwith supporting material. ’- - ' ...
Tab l: Application 201020048 ’‘ ’ • . ' - . '
(fa) Tafa 2: Application 201020049. ' . ' • .
(c) . Tafa3:Application20102DQ67 . , ' '

.; (d)- laHi'Copies of.correspondence and. other supporting documents .


KD-167

Cases 2010200.48, 2010^049 and 201020067-Fags 2

' -Instructions:
11. ■

■ 12. You must declioB to grant consent.if not-satisfiod that all of the criteria in section 16 ar
e met.

■ ■ only consider the same criteria once (and not consider them under each relevant category need

■ 14. ?"!^'"1 factors in section 17(2) and regulati^


■ 28, and determine which of the factors (or parts of them) are relevant to the overseas'investrnffi
noting that you need not consider- the factors in regulation 28(i] ■-'thB 'economic beneffe' f ^
■ regulafion.28(|)) - the 'mitigating' factor - as.'the three applications for consent were
these factors cdme into force. . ■ . .■ . ■
■ 15. Having detemined which factors (or parts of them) are relevant,' you must de:
importance to be given to each relevant factor (or parts of them),' ' ' ive ■

IB. You must then deterniine whether .section 16n)(e)(ii) and (iii) have^eh^
tl ird to', the
, , relevantfactors (or parts of them), weighted for importance. .
17. 'if you wish to make any changes to the conditions of consgt,^
lould .be discussed
■ with the Overseas Investment Office, and th'e other Minister, b
18'.

' , Recommendations: .•

. I recommend that you '

. , 19.. --determine that: ' '


. ..'
,
.
- .(a) . the relevant overseas per
(b) .
(c) '
Kim Dotcom has-^n®
Kim Dotcom has
m pthe overseas investrnents is Kim Dotcom; and
icf^a acumen relevant to the overseas investments; and .
Uncial commitment to-the overseas investments; and ' . ■
• . (d) IQmDbt^
^^ter;an.d . ■ ■
Mvidual of the,kind referred to in section 15 or 16 of the Immigration ' .

:•

f! ps will he, or is likely to he, substantial and identifiable; and'


lu:'

^%e satisfied-that the criteria for consent in section 16 have been met; and

IsDciate Minister of Finance:


Minister for Land Information:
• ''Satisfied
/ ■ ■

' Satisfied- .v/


Wot Satisfied
7^ ■ Not Satisfied ■-
KD-168

. Cases 201020048, 201020049 and 201020067- Page 3 ,

.■ (fa) grant consent to' the overseas inv'eitments subject to the conditions in appendix 1 of the '
■ Report.. , ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

'Associate IVlinister of Finance: ■ Minister for Land Information: ■ •

, Consent Granted Consent Granted

■' ' Consent Declined

0 Consent Declined

‘ •?
a
Associate Minister of Finance

Date
sji i

'' jn

■ Anneftes McClure - Manager

Overseas Investment Office ■

I. .
New Zealand Parliament - 8130 (2012). Rt Hon Winston Peters to the Prime Minister
KD-16919 pm

Order Paper and questions


Questions for written answer
8130 (2012). Rt Hon Winston Peters to the Prime Minister (28 Sep 2012): When Content provider
did he, or any of his represen stives, first learn of Kim Schmitz in his capacity as
Prime Minister?

Rt Hon John Key (Prime Minister) replied: in July 2011 one of my staff was '*•> 'V

advised by Hon Simon Power's office by phone that Hon Power was declining an
OlO application from Kim Dotcom. This information was not conveyed to me as it t;
•f M
was routine. I first heard of Kim Dotcom on 19 January 2012.
House uC Rtjue.soiit'jiivts

Information

Date:
28 September 2012
Subject
Politics and Government
Metadata

hf tp://www. pa rliament.nz/en-nz/pb/business/cjwa/QWA_08130„2012/0130-2012-rt-hon-wins!on-peters-Jo-the-prime-minister Page 1 of 1


12/12/2016 Minister distances himself f oints' case ­ National ­ NZ Herald News
KD-170
The New Zealand Herald
11:09am Mon 12 December
Network
Few Showers 20° / 14°   Auckland
Today's Paper
Register
Login
Subscribe
Help & Support
中文

David Fisher
David Fisher is a senior reporter for the NZ Herald.

Minister distances himself from FBI 'brownie points' case

Want to score 'brownie points' with the FBI? Pass on info about Dotcom, Immigration officers were told. Photo / supplied

The "secrets­for­brownie points" case has been escalated to Customs Minister Maurice Williamson ­ but he says it has nothing to do with
him.
It's a stance labelled inadequate by Greens' spokesman on Customs, Steffan Browning, who says the minister must at least assure the
public nothing illegal has taken place.
Both the minister and his department are refusing to make any comment about an email from Greg Davis, Customs' manager of
intelligence services, which urges colleagues in charge of sensitive information about internet tycoon Kim Dotcom to slip it to the FBI for
"brownie points".
At the time of the email, Mr Davis was manager of the Integrated Targeting Operations Centre ­ a highly sensitive passenger screening
process adopted from US Homeland Security.
In the email, Mr Davis told Immigration NZ's intelligence staff a "proactive" delivery of information would be welcomed by the FBI.
Mr Davis said "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".
At the time, no New Zealand agency had received a formal request for assistance from the
US in the Dotcom case.
Mr Williamson's office initially refused to say whether he had been briefed about the email
by Mr Davis. Today, Mr Williamson responded to an urgent Official Information Act request
and revealed he had been told last Friday by a senior Customs official about the "brownie
points" email. It was the same day the Herald began making inquiries.
"It is an operational matter that is being dealt with by Customs."
But Customs continues to refuse to make any comment on the issue, saying only it is
allowed to pass certain information to other countries.
Mr Browning said the minister appeared to be using "operational issues" to avoid getting
involved in an incident which raised concerning questions.
"There needs to be some very clear explanations. Greg Davis should be held accountable. From that email, that appears to be
something that is potentially even illegal that is being suggested."
He said Customs should take note of the statement made by Prime Minister John Key when he opened the Integrated Targeting
Operations Centre, just weeks before Mr Davis sent the email.
At the opening, Mr Key said: "Anyone who is innocent has nothing to fear."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11174658 1/2
12/12/2016 Minister distances himself f oints' case ­ National ­ NZ Herald News
Mr Browning said Mr Key's view raised questions about Cust nd its refusal to explain Mr Davis' actions.
KD-171
He said it showed Mr Williamson needed to be involved. "What it the minister's explanation for Greg Davis' casual approach to the
privacy of a New Zealand resident?"
­ NZ Herald

Get the news delivered straight to your inbox


Receive the day’s news, sport and entertainment in our daily email newsletter
SIGN UP NOW

© Copyright 2016, NZME. Publishing Limited

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11174658 2/2
KD-172

1
This is the exhibit marked “A” referred to in ti:
annexed affirmation of Bethany Ellen Madde
affirmed at Wellington this 16*'' day of January 201
before me:
No. 010-12 Thomas James Gilbert
Solicitor A Solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand
Wellington

The Embassy of the United States of America presents its compliments to

the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade of New Zealand, and has the honor to

request the provisional aiTest of KIM DOTCOM ("DOTCOM") for the puipose of

extradition from New Zealand.

The Embassy also requests the seizure of all articles, instmments, objects of

value or documents relating to the offenses, whether or not used for its execution.

or which in any other manner may be material evidence of the offense charged, in

the possession of the fugitive at the time of arrest, so that such property may be

surrendered with the Eigitive if extradition to the United States is granted.

DOTCOM is wanted to stand trial in the United States on copyright

infringement and money laundering offenses. He is the subject of a criminal

indictment, no. l:12-cr-3, filed on January 5, 2012, in the U.S. District Court for

the Eastern District of Virginia, which charges him with the following offenses:

Count One: Conspiracy to commit racketeering, in violation of Title 18,


Diplomatic Note
KD-173

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 canies a maximum penalty of

five years of imprisonment.

Count Three: Conspiracy to launder monetaiy instmments, 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 caiTies a maximum penalty of five years of imprisonment.

On January 5, 2012, a wairant for the arrest of DOTCOM, was issued in the

above court based on the indictment.

The underlying faets of the case indicate that on or about September 2005
KD-174

through to the present, DOTCOM, Finn Batato, Julius Bencko, Sven Echtemach,

Mathias Ortmann, Andrus Nomm, Brain van der Kolk, and others have been

members and associates of a worldwide criminal organization, which administers

several Internet websites that unlawfully reproduce and distribute copyrighted

television programs, software, music, and motion pictures, with estimated harm to

copyright holders well in excess of $500,000,000 and the acquisition and transfer

of significantly more than $175,000,000 in criminal profits and proceeds.

These individuals, including DOTCOM, either directly reproduced and

distributed, or aided or encouraged others to reproduce and distribute, many

thousands of copyrighted works over the Internet, on websites that were available

to tens of millions of visitors each day, including copyrighted works that were then

bemg prepared for commercial distribution in the United States. A Special Agent

with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, acting in an undercover capacity, was

able to view and download, during a six-month period, numerous copies of one or

more copyrighted works, which had a total retail value of more than $2,500. These

copyrighted works included motion pictures, television programs, and software,

which were reproduced and distributed over the Internet on the websites

Megaupload.com and Megavideo.com.

The following are a few examples of copyrighted works that the agent

searched for, identified, viewed, and downloaded, which were publicly available
KD-175

over the Internet from Megaupload.com and were stored on computer web servers

located in the United States: '

On or about April 29, 2011, the agent viewed and downloaded the

copyrighted motion picture ”Tlie Green Hornet" from Megaupload.com. That

motion picture had been released in United States movie theaters on or about

January 14, 2011, but was not commercially distributed in the United States until

on or about May 3, 2011.

On or about August 12,2011, the agent viewed and downloaded the

copyrighted motion picture "Bad Teacher" from Megaupload.com. That motion

picture had been released in United States movie theaters on or about June 24,

2011, but was not commercially distributed in the United States until on or about

October 18,2011.

On October 27, 2011, the agent viewed and downloaded the copyrighted

motion picture "Taken" from Megaupload.com. According to documents obtained

through the investigation, on or about October 25, 2008, Bram van der Kolk

uploaded the motion picture "Taken" to Megaupload.com. On that same date.

Bram van der Kolk distributed to at least one other person by electronic means

the unique Unifoim Resource Locator (also known as an Internet address, or URL)

that linked to the video file. The motion picture "Taken" was not commercially

distributed in the United States until on or about Januaiy 30, 2009.


KD-176

On or about November 21,2011, the agent viewed and downloaded the

copyrighted motion picture "The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1" from

Megaupload.com. That motion picture had been released in United States movie

theaters on or about November 18, 2011, and was not commercially distributed in

the United States until a time period after the date of this extradition request.

DOTCOM has personally supervised the development of these websites;

he has directed the creation of the network infrastnicture behind the websites that

helped the organization prosper; he has negotiated contracts with Internet Seiwice

Providers and advertisers; and he has had overall control over business-related

decisions in the company, to include serving as the Chief Executive Officer of

Megaupload Limited and Megamedia Limited, which are two of the companies

significantly involved in the operation of the websites.

In addition, all of these individuals, including DOTCOM, are responsible

for collecting the criminal profits and proceeds generated by these websites into

various financial accounts and transferring these fiinds to and from multiple

countries in support of the continued operation of these websites. DOTCOM

deliberately associated himself with these individuals and actively supported the

operation of these websites, all with the knowledge that these websites were being

used to facilitate criminal copyright infi'ingement.


KD-177

Provisional Arrest is covered under Aiticle XT of the Exhadition Between

the United States of America and New Zealand, signed at Washington on Januaiy

12, 1970, which entered into force on December 8, 1970 (the "Treaty"). The

offense of conspiracy to launder monetary instmments is an extraditable offense

pursuant to Article II (19) of the Treaty and Article 6 of the United Nations

Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime of November 15, 2000 (the

"TOC Convention"). Moreover, while not listed in the Treaty, the charges of

conspiracy to commit racketeering, conspiracy to commit copyright infringement.

and criminal copyright infringement are covered by Articles 2, 3, and 5 of the TOC

Convention.. Both New Zealand and the United States are parties to the TOC

Convention. In accordance with Article 16 of the TOC Convention, each of the

offenses to which that Aiticle applies shall be deemed to be included as

extraditable offenses in any extradition treaty existing between the parties. Seizure

and surrender of articles is covered by Article XVI of the Treaty.

DOTCOM is described as a Caucasian male, standing approximately

6 feet 4 inches to 6 feet 6 inches tall, and weighing approximately 322 pounds.

with blonde/brown hair and an unknown eye color. DOTCOM was born

in Kiel, Germany, on Januaiy 21, 1974, and is a citizen of Gemiany and

Finland. DOTCOM's New Zealand identification no. is 150730004793, and

his Finland passport no. is PX8027717, in the name Kim Dotcom. U.S. authorities
D'
KD-178

are also aware of the following other forms of identification for DOTCOM:

Finland passport no. 16783622 (issued July 4, 2005, in name of "Kim Tim Jim

Vestor" at the Finland Embassy in Manila, Philippines); German passport no.

9513174684 (issued May 31, 2002, at Munich, Germany, in the name "Kim

Schmitz"); German driver's license no. B0202664521 (issued May 12, 2000, at

Munich, Germany, in the name "Kam Schmitz"); and Hong Kong identity card no.

R623090(2) (issued Februaiy 22, 2010, in the name "Kim Dotcom"). DOTCOM is

also known as Kim Schmitz, Kim Tim Jim Vestor, and various combinations of

Kim Tim Jim Vestor. A photograph of DOTCOM will be provided.

Please be assured that if the fugitive is arrested at the request of the United

States, the United States Government will present a formal request for his

extradition, together with supporting documentation, within the time specified by

the Treaty.

The United States looks fomard to the cooperation of the authorities in New

Zealand with respect to this request and to providing similar assistance on a

reciprocal basis.

The Embassy of the United States of America avails itself of this

opportunity to renew to the New Zealand Government the assurances of its highest

consideration.
KD-179

Embassy of the United States of America,

Wellington, New Zealand

January 13, 2012


KD-180

U.S. Departaenf of Justice

m
MBW:LGB:JT:lces
DOJNo.; 1S2-37368
Criminal Division

Waifibiglonac. 20130
Januaiy /f . 2012

Hio Honorable Christopber Finlayson i


Attorney-General
CrovBi Law Office
Level 10
Unisys House
56 The Terrace i
P.O.Box 2858
Wellington, New Zealand

Re:, Request for As'sistance in the Investlgattmi of Kim Dotcom. Bram van der
■ Kolk. Megastuff T/imited, and Others
!
Dear Attorney-General Finlayson:

The Central Authority of the United States of America requests the assistance of the
appropriate authorities in New Zealand pursuant to New Zealand's domestic law for mutual
assistance in criminal matters. The U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia and the U.S.
Department of Justice, Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Secrion (collectively, "the U.S.
prosecutors"), along vnth the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“EBr), are investigating what i

authorities refer to as the “Mega Conspiracy" and its officers and employees, including KIM
DOTCOM (also known as KIM SCHMITZ and as KM "nM JM VESTOR; hereinafter referred to
as “DOTCOM”); BRAM VAN DER KOLK (“VAN DER KOLK"); and the affiliated company
MegastuffLimited, among others, for violating U.S. criminal laws by administering several Internet
websites that reproduce and distribute infiinging copies of copyrighted television programs,
software, music, and motion pictures, as well as conducting monetaiytcansactionswiththe proceeds
of those uni awful activities. Megastuff Limited is registered in New Zealand and is involved in the
transfer and disbursement of illicit proceeds generated ftom the websites.
i
In furtherance of this investigation, the U.S. prosecutors seek records of bank accounts in
New Zealand that are beheved to be used to purchase items on behalf of the Mega Conspiracy, and
have been identified as the direct benefioiaiies of wire transfers from known Mega Conspiracy
financial accounts, to detemiine the breadth and scope of the Mega Conspiracy's financial activities,
to explain where its employees are holding the illegal profits gained j&om its operations, to ojqjlain
how those funds are being used, and to further identify accounts and assets that may be subject to
forfeiture under U.S, law. In addition, the U.S. prosecutors seek assistance inthe search ofprqperfy
and seizure of evidence located inNew Zealand; in the interviewing ofwitnesses and targets; and in
the collection of other business and official records. This evidence is needed in order to further
demonstrate that the Mega Conspiracy's directors and employees are aware that its websites are
KD-181

I" ■ ■ ■■ "f'

regularly used to reproduce and distribute infringing copies of copyri^ted works^ to gain a better
understanding of and to document the Mega Conspiracy’s acrivities, and to identify additional
individuals who are working with the Mega Conspiracy,

The information contained in this request includes a description of the offending criminal
conduct, and the roles of the following individuals and companies involved in the offenses:
DOTCOM, VAN DER KOLK, FINN BATATO (‘iBATATO"), JULIUS BEKCKO ("BENCKO”),
SVEN ECHTERNACH (“ECHTERNACH”), MATHIAS ORTMANN (“ORIMANN”), ANDRUS
NDMM ('NOMM"), MEGAUPLOAD LIMITED, and Megastuff Limited. The offending oriminai !
conduct includes conspiracy to commit racketeering, conspiracy to commit money laundering,
conspiracy to commit oriminai copyright infringement, and actual criminal copyright infringement.
Under the racketeering legislation in the United States, "racketeering" involves a criminal enteiprise
friat isfocuscd on committing and furthering any ofmore than one hundred serious specified federal
offenses. These serious offenses include crimes such as extortion, narcotics violations, securities
fraud, and terrorism related offenses, andthefederal offenses aHegedinthis case, money laundering
and criminal copyright infringement.

The primary sources of the information contained in the request are from over 14 million
intercepted dectronio mails ("e-mails”) sent by and between these individuals; from financial records,
including records provided by banks and by. PayPal, Src. (“PayPal”); and from the investigation t-
performed by fire FBI, including undercover analysis ofhowthe websites operate. The e-mails show s
that DOTCOM and VAN DER KOLK, who both reside in New Zealand, as well as the other i
individuals named above, are actively involved in the Mega Conspiracy. In pardcitlar, the e-mails
show that D OTCOM is the central decision-maker amongst the conspirators; that he has personally i
supervised the development of the offendmg websites involved in the criminal aofivify; that he has
directed the creation of the network infrastructure behind the websites that helped the organization i

prosper; that he has negotiated contracts with Internet Service Providers and advertisers; and that he I
has had overall control over husiness-related decisions in the company, to include serving as the
Chief Executive Officer of MEGAUPLOAD LIMITED. The primary evidence available to the U.S.
prosecutors and the FBI, therefore, and reflected in this request, are statements made by the
conspirators themselves, including DOTCOM, about the management of the Mega Conspiracy’s
1;
companies and profits generated from criminal activity.

CONFIDENTIALITY

■ We respeotfiiliy requestthat, to the extent permitted by New Zealand law, this requestbe kept
confidential in all respects, and that its contents and subject matter (or any actions takenhi fulfilling
this request) not be made public or shared with the subjects of the investigation or with any persons
whose knowledge is not essential to the execution of this request, due to the ongoing nature of this
criminal investigation. U.S. authorities have reason to believe that the directors of flie Mega
Conspiracy are wary of the United States due to civil litigationissues, and the Mega Conspiracy holds
significant financial assets that would allow its directors and employees to relocate in a short time
period. Disclosure of the request could, thus, cause a significant and detrimental setback to

2
KD-182

the investigation.

We also jequest that all those who must be made aware ofthis request for assistance for &e
purpose of its executioiibe advised that its contents and subject matter are to be kept confidential and
should not be madepublic or shared with the subjects ofthe investigation or withanypersons whose
knowledge is not essential to the execution ofthis request. Hthis request cannot be executed without
such disclosure, die prosecutors ask that New Zealand authorities notify tire Office ofMemationial
Affeirs (“OIA"), Criminal Division, U,S. Department of Justice, and pos^one execution of the
request until further notice from OIA.

TFTRFACTjS

A, Overview of the Mega Conspiracy's Unlawfal Activities


)
In March 2010, the FBI Intellectual Propeify Rights Unit initiated an investigation of a
worldwide criminal organization known collectively as the '“Mega Conspiracy.'' DOTCOM, VAN
DER KOtK, BATATO, BENCKO, ECHIBRNACH, ORTMANN, andNOMM, and a number of
associated companies under their direct control, are members ofthe "MegaCongsiracy," which has
engaged in andfacilitated criminal copyri^t infringement and money laundering onamassive scale
around the world. Although it is diffirniltto precisely identify the shareholdings ofeach conspimtor,
financial records and business formation documents obtained during the course oftiieinvestigation,
including income statements and balance sheets, demonstrate the following estimated ownership
stakes in MBGAUPLOAD LIMHED: DOTCOM (68%); ORTMANN (25%); VAN DERKOLK
(2,5%); BENCKO (2.5%);andECHTERNACH(l%),^ MEGAUPLOAD LIMITED is the registered
owner ofMegaupload.com and has been used to facilitate the operation ofthe Mega Conspiracy. The
remaining conspirators, BATATO and NOMM, are employees, but not shareholders. ■

The harm to cop3oight holders is estimated to be well in excess of USD $500,000,000, and '
the conspiracy involves reported income of more than USD $175,000,000 in criminal proceeds.
Although the average suggested retail price of a motion picture or television series on disc exceeds
USD $19, works that are not commercially available are difficult to price becacee there is no
le^timate market for them copyri^ted works that aro not available on disc at the time of
inj&ingement). Generally, courts in the United States have accepted evidence that these pie-release
works are worth at least as much as tire legitimate copies at tire time ofrelease, or amiidmutn ofUSD
$ 19 per copy for both pre-release and released works. For musical recordings, courts in the United ‘
States generally accept valuations of at least USD $.99 per song or USD $9.99 per album, which are
the most common prices in tiie onlme marketplace. Software prices vary greatly, so courts in the
United States attempt to use the actual suggested retail prices ofspecific titles. Usingthese estimates
and the FBI investigatiotL into the breadth of titles available on websites controlted by the Mega
Conspiracy, including Megaupload.com and Meeavideo.com. together with information publicly
available on Megaupload-oom claiming that the website has at least 50 million daily unique users, it
1
The remaining 1% is held by an individual who is not a target of this investigation.

3
KD-183

is clear that the infringement caused by these websites over the years exceeds many billions of
dollars. To be overly conservative, the prosecutors have estimated the loss amount at USD
$500,000,000, which would be the estimated infringement amount caused in less than two weeks, if
each daily user only downloaded a single infringing copy of a musical recording at USD $.99.

Megaupload.com is an Internet website operated by the Mega Conspiracy fliat offers file and
content hosting services. Since approximately September 2005, Megaupload.com has been used
by members of die Mega Con^iracy to willfully reproduce and distribute infringing copies of
all types of copyrighted works, including motion pictures, television programs, musical recordings,
and computer software. According to Atexa.com. a subsidiary company of Amazon.com fliat
analyzes Intemettraffio, onDecember 1,2011, Megaunload.com was ranked as the 74th mostvisited
website on the entire fritemet, andMcgavideo.com ms ranked as the 162iid most visited website, In
comparison, on that same dat^ nvtimes.com was ranked 89th, and netfiix.com was ranked 101st.*
According to internal company records, including income statements and balance sheets, and • f
confirmed by an analysis of bankrecords, the popularity ofthe infringing content has generated tens
' of millions of dollars in advertising revenues for the Mega Conspiracy.

The Megaupload.com websife offers both free and premium access to its services. Non-
payingusers may upload files with a maximtun file size of 2 Gigabytes ("GB “) and may store a total
of200 GB of data on servers leased by the Mega Conspiracy, Dowiiload capabilities and speed also
are restricted for non-paying users. Premium users (for a monthly fee of € 9.99 that is accepted by
PayPal or by Moneyboofcers Limited) may upload files of an unlimited size and may provide access
to their uploaded files to an unlimited number of persons simultaneously. The fact that premium
users are allowed to provide access to any uploaded file to an unlimited number of other persons
belies the claim that Megaupload.com is merely a “cyberlocker" that is used to store persond files for
a subscriber; instead, premium accounts are deliberately designed to distribute files on a massive
scale.
(
Ones either anon-paying or premiumuscr uploads a file. Megaupload.com provides flieuser !
with a unique Uniform Resource Locator (“URL") that allows anyone with the specific URL liokto
download or view the file, ff a video file is uploaded on Megaupload.com. an individual can use the
provided URL to redirect others to another Mega Conspiracy-controlled website called
Megavideo.com. to view the file through a "Flash" video player; users can also embed the
Megavideo.com player into their own website to display the video file. Non-premium accounts are,
however, limited to watching 72 minutes of any given video at one time, which - since almost all
commercial movies exceed that length - provides significant mcentives for users who are seeking
infringing copies ofmotionpictures to pay.a monthly fee for premium access. According to mtemsd
company records, including income statements and balance sheets, and confirmed by an analysis of
bank records, Meganpload.com has collected premium subscriber fees of more than USD

* The website nvtimes.com is owned by The New York Times Company, a newspaper publication
based in the United States. The website netflix.com is, according to the website itself, "the world's
leading Internet subscription service for enjoying movies and TV shows."

4
KD-184

*•

$150,000,000 since flie inception of the Mega Conspiracy and, according to infonnation that is
publicly available on the Megairoload.com website, has more than 180,000,000 registered users and
more than 50,000,000 daily unique visitors. The Megauptoad.com website boasts that during peak !
times, more than 3,000,000 users are simultaneously accessing the website. I

Before any video can be viewed on Megavideo.com. theusermust view an advertisement. E­


mail sent between the conspirators demonstrates that although the Mega Conspiracy originally had
contracts with advertisers adBrite, Ihc., Google AdSense^ and Party Poker, companies currently pay
the Mega Conspiracies ovra advertising website, Megacliok.com. to setup advertising campaigns'on
all ofthe Mega Conspiracy websites. These e-mails further demonstrate diatthe high trafBo volume
on its websites allows the Mega Conspiracy to charge advertisers up-firont and at ahi^er price, as
opposed to the pencentage-per-eiick methodology used by other popular hrtemet advertiser websites. !
Nearly as popular as Megaupload.com. Megacliok.com has been estimated by Alexa.com to be the. I
106th most visited website on die entire Intemet.

With the foil knowledge of members ofthe Mega Conspiracy, Meaaupload.com supports a
vast landscape ofintemet piracy websites offering Megupload-com-providedURLs to provide access
to and downloading of luiautiiorized copdes of copyrighted works that are being hosted on computer
servers associated with the Mega Conspiracy. Examples of “linking" URL websites include:
umiavideo.net. megaupload.net. meg3telease.net Idno.to. aUuc.otg. ueliculasvonkis.cQm.
seriesvonkis.com. . The FBI’s
analysis has shown that a very large percentage of the files that these websites linked to were
conteined on servers leased by the Mega Conspiracy and werOj in feet, iafiingmg copies of
copyrighted works. These copyrighted works are being reproduced and distributed by the Mega i
Conspiracy without the consent or authorization of the copyright holders, in willful violation of
United States lawi ■

From Match 2010 tinough December 2010, the FBI also analj^d the websites that users !
visited immediately prior (often called tlie “referring" site) to visiting Megaupload.com and
Megavideo.com. 'Iheinvesrigationievealedthatmostofthe referring webpages contained postings
ofURL links created by Megaupload.com. The FBI has also obtained e-mail evidence that members
of the Mega Conspiracy, including all ofthe individuals named above, are well aware of their own
website’ relationships with the linking sites and actually provide incentives to ensure pervasive
Intemet distribution of these links.

To further promote the uploading of infimging files and the dissemination ofthe associated
URL links, the Mega Conspiracy implemented a rewards system, fiom at least as early as September
2005 until My 2011. Accordingto information that was publicly available on the Megaupload.com
website, rewards to users included fi:ee memberships to Mega Conspiracy websites and, more
i-
importantly, financial payments from the Mega Conspiracy’s PayPal account. To qualify fer a
reward, a user must have uploaded their content to servers leased by the Mega Conspiracy, and then i­i
advertised the MegauploM.com-cieated URL throu^out the Internet, so as to drive traffic to the
Mega Conspiracy website containing theinfeb^g copy ofthe work. The most popular content on

5
KD-185

•V'fs*;***
•t - v&. i_, ^ ■V . vuv

Megaupload.coni was then rewarded by the Mega Conspiracy; popularity was calculated by how
many times the content was accessed by other Intemet users (which is fundamentally inconsistent
with the concQ)t of a cyberiocker). The rewards system was clearly designed to provide the widest
possible advertisement for copyright-infringing materials on Mega Conspiracy websites and to s[
encouragetheresultingadvertisingrevenue. Members ofthe Mega Conspiracy are aware oftheway
that riieir websites are actually used by others; have themselves used the systemsto upload, as well as i.
reproduce and distribute, copyri^ted content; and are aware that they have benefitted financially i
directly j&om the massive intogement of cppyri^ted materials,
I
The puhlio-facing Meaaupload.com webpage is not searchable; meaning a user cannotlocate
on that website whether a particular file is available on servem leased by the Mega Conspiracy. A
simple search of the Intemet, however, will reveal many JVlegaupload.com Unis for a voluminous
number of copyrighted works and, therefore, allow access to infringing copies of these works
knowingly connoflcd by the Mega Conspiracy. The FBI has numerous examples, infact, ofmanbers
of the Mega Conspiracy instructing subscribers and users on how to locate lihkfiles on the Internet, .
;
so that they may access copyright-infrmging materials that are on the group’s servers, ■
i
I
In contrast to the general public, members of the Mega Conspiracy also have full access to
the listings of actual files that are on tiieir servers (as well as all of the Megauoload.com links to the
files). The FBI has obtained e-mails between the conspirators showing that the conspirators have L
searched the internal database for their friends and themselves, so that they may directly access t-
copyright-infrmging content on the Mega Conspiracy-leased servers. F
Although the public Megaupload.com website does not allow searches, it does list the
supposed Top 100 Megaupload files, which generally include motion picture trailers and software
demonstrations that are freely available onthe Intemet. E-mails between the conspirators, however,
strongly suggest that the Top 100 list is not an accurate depiction, ofthe most popular downloads on
MeeaunIoad.com. but is purposefully altered by members ofthe Mega Conspiracy in order to avoid
acknowledging that the most popular materials on their servers ate almost entirely copyright-
infringing materials.

Megavideo.com also attempts to mask the true illicit nature of the videos that it makes
available. The front page of the website displays a listing of videos, including news stories, user­
generated videos, and general Intemet videos; no copyrighted motion pictures or television shows
appear on that page. Unlike its uploading tmunteppart, Megavideo.com provides both browse and
search functions; however, any user’s search on Megavideo.com for a copyrighted file (which will
almost certainly he present on a Mega Conspiracy server somewhere in the world) will not produce
any results.

The FBI has, however, discovered that publicly browsing the most-viewed videos in the !
Entertainment category on Megavideo.com reveals that several copyrighted motion pictures are
illicitly available on Mega Conspiracy servers. These motion pictures are owned copyright
holders in the United States, who are represented by the Motion Picture Association of America

6
KD-186

(“MPAA"). The MPAA has stated that the Mega Conspiracy does not have any rights to reproduce or
distribute these motion pictures. Additionally, e-mails exchanged between conspirators reflect that
videos posted on the front-facing and searchable sections of Meeavideo.com were themselves
infringed from www.YouTube.com CTouTube") by the Mega Conspiracy, without the consent of
YouTube and/or the individual who originally uploaded the videos to YouTube. '!

Additionally, the Mega Cong)ira(y can ensure that infruiging contentremains available on its
websites, despite attempts by copyri^t holders to haltknown infringement by the Mega Conspiracy,
According to internal e-mails between conspirators, when a file is being uploaded to
Megaupload.com. the conspiracy’s automated ^tems calculate a unique identifier for the file, called
a MD5 hash, that is generated using a mathematical algorithm. If, afier the MD5 calculation, the
system determines that the uploading file aheady exists on a server leased by the Mega Conspiracy,
Megaupload.com does not create a second copy of the file. Instead, the system provides a new and
unique URL to the newuser that is pointed to the original file already present on the server. During
the investigation, the FBI created an undercover premium account on Megaupload.com and t®ted
how the website operates from a user’s point of view. The undercover activity includM uploading
files and submitting requests thatthe files be removed for copyright-in&ingementpuiposes. The FBI
learned that if there is more than one DEL linking to a file (meaning if more than one person in the
world has uploaded the same copyrighted work), and if a copyri^t owner requests that a specific
URL for its work be removed, the Mega Conspiracy will, at besv oidy remove the requested URL.
The FBI’s undercover activities have also shown that the Mega Conspiracy will not remove the actual
infringing file or make it inaccessible to the public. That file will, in fact, still be available through
all the remaining URLs, which are stored in a reference database operated by the Mega Conspiracy.
In addition, that file will still he available through future URL links created by newly-attempted
uploads ofthe same infringing file. This information about the Megaunload-com system, which was
gathered by the FBI throu^ undercover activities, has been confirmed by e-mails between the
con^irators.

Ill addition to copyiighted files, otiier types of illicit content have been uploaded onto the
Megaupload.com servers, including child pornography and terrorism propaganda videos. The
conspirators have indicated in internal e-malis that they can automatically identify and delete such
materials on all of the Mega Conspiracy's servers by cdculating MD5 hash values ofknown duld
pornography and that files with matching hash numbers are automatically deleted from the server.
The failure of the Mega Conspiracy to implement a similar program to delete known copyri^t-
infringmg content is strong evidence that the group under^ands its massive profits derive fiomthese ‘
infringing materials.

In addition to MegaupIoad.com. Megavldeo.com. and Megaclick.com. the other websites

^ There is also evidence that the members of the Mega Conspiracy have selectively responded to
inflingement claims by copyright holders (including under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in
the United States) based on the group’s perception of how significant a threatthe individual complaint
is to the' operations and profits ofthe Mega Conspiracy.

7
KD-187

..

created by the Mega Conspiracy inolude: Megapom-cpm: Meeaworld.com: Megalive.com:


Megapbc.com: Mepacar.com: Megafund.com: Megakev.coni: Megakiag.com: Meeahelp.com:
M^agopo.cora: Meeamovie.com; Megabackup.com; Megapav.com: Megabox.com: and
Megabest.com. In addition to Megastuff Limited and MEGAUPLOAD LIMITED, the following I
companies and entities have facilitated and promoted the Mega Conspiracy’s operations: VESTOR
LIMITED; Megamedia Limited; Megavideo Limited; Meg^otie Limited; Megapix Limited;
Kingdom International Ventures Limited; Netplus International Limited LLC; Basemax International
Limited; Mindpoint international Limited LLC; Kimvestor Limited; Trendax Limited; Monkey
Limited; Kimpire Limited; A Limited; N1 Limited; KNK Media Company; Megapay Limited;
Megamusic Limited; FinnBatato Kommunikation; Mega Services Europe Ltd.; Megateam Limited;
Megacard hic,; Megasite Inc,; Seventures Limited; SECtravel; and Btamos B.V. Bank records and
internal e-mails between conspirators demonstrate tliat the creation and operation ofthese sites have
been facilitated and promoted by illicit proceeds firom the operations of Megaupload.com and
Megavldeo.com.

B. Megastttff Limited and its Corporate Headquarters

According to e-mails obtained by legal process in the United States, since at least September
2009, DOTCOM has leased a residential property in New Zealand located at 186 Mahoeaui Valley
Road, CoatesvUie; Auckland 0793, New Zealand. DOTCOM refers to the property as ‘Dotcom
Mansion," and he resides there part-time, together with his wife, Mona Aquino Verga. According to
an article entitled "Flamboyant former backer to settle in NZ," published on June 12, 2011, at
www.nzherald.co.nz ("June 12,2011 article’*), DOTCOM has rented the property since coming to
New Zealand. DOTCOM is quoted in the article as stating, “[W]hen the time is ri^t we are planning
to reside in New Zealand permanently," .

In addition to leasing Dotcom Mansion, the e-mails further demonstrate that the
Mega Conspiracy has leased an adjacent property located at 5H The Prom, CoatesvUie, Auckland
0793, New Zealand, According to an e-mail sent in November 2010, DOTCOM invited a business ■

associate to travel J&om the United States and stay at the adjacent property.

According to e-mails between conspirators, on or about October 8,2010, McKavanagh sent


an e-mail to DOTCOMentitled “CoatesvUie Update,” In the e-mail, McKavana^ asked for approval
to spend approximately $55,000 to lay pipes at 5H The From, to be used for electrical,
communication, and “fibre optics,” Fibre optic cables are a high-speed means to connect to the
Internet. In regjonse, DOTCOM wrote, “I agree with this spending. We need fibre internet
connectivity at both locations, main house and 5H prom. And I like this to be deep in the ground.”
On or about December 11,2010, Bowden sent an e-mail to DOTCOM entitled “5H Update,” hi the
e-mail, Bowden stated that "Fibre is being pulled into the property tomorrow.” Based on these e­
mails, the FBI beUeves that 5H The Prom is connected to the Internet, and that the corresponding IP
address is being used to further the purposes of Megastuff Limited and the Mega Conspiracy.

Additionally, FBI has learned fiomNcw Zealand law enforcement that 5H The Prom has a

8
KD-188

large gkage, wluch law enforcement believes to house a number of vdiides owned by the Mega
Conspiracy. It is highly likdy that these vehicles were purchased with proceeds of the offending
ciimmal conduct described here. New Zealand law enforcement has also reported that DOTCOM
recently hired an individual named Jess Bushyhead (“Bushyhead”) to perfoim work relatmg to
installing a “proxy*’ at either Dotcom Mansion or 5H The Prom, and that while performing die worl^
Budiyhead stayed at 5H The Prom ffom on or about December 21,2011, throu^ on or about Januaiy
4, 2012. A "proxy” server is a computer server that acts as an intermediary for computers
communicating via the Internet. Proxy servers are commonly used by individuals who are attempting
to conceal their identity on the Interne^ for example, ly concealing their hitemet Protocol ("IP")
address. According to New Zealand law enforcement, DOTCOM tenninated Bushyhead’s
. employment early, and re&sed to return Bushyhead’s laptop. AccordingtoBushyhead’sstatementin
the police report, Ms laptop was last seen at 5H The Prom.

Ihe e-mails further showthatto manage Dotcom Mansion, the Mega Conspiracy establi^ed ..
Megastaff Limited. Public documents available online through the website of the New Zealand
Companies Ofi9ce confiim that on March 15,2010, DOTCOM registered Megastuff Limited as a
New Zealand limited company (company no. 2434372), DOTCOMhimselfisthe only shareholder.
The Compatues Office wpbsite confinns thatfhe follovnhg individHals are cunently directors, or have
been directors, of Megastuff Limited: DOTCOMj Roy Vincent 'Crane; Grant Ian McKavanagh
(“McKavana^’'); Wayne Philip Tempero (“Tempero”); Andrew Phillip Allart Bowden (“Bowden");
and Peter Diggoiy Brooke (“Brooke"), E-mails obtained by legal process in the United States reved
;
that Tempero and Bowden have resided at Dotcom Mansion since at least April 2011. hi addiUon,
the June 12,2011 article identified McKavana^ and Tempero as directors ofMegastuffLimited and
stated that McKavanagh "handled Dotcom’s personal business affairs in New Zealand before
resigning in April," and that Tempero provides bodyguard services.

E-mails ob^ed by legal process in the United States further reveal that the following I
individuals are currently employed, or have been employed, by Megastuff Limited in New Zealand
and are hi^y likely to have knowledge of its operations: John Paul Llasus Lo, Princ^al Manager;
Kerry Michael MoEnimey, Property Manager; Aivi July Santiago Juanico, Principal Personal
Assistant; Erika Joy Hansen, General Coordinator; Christiane Kem; and Blanche Clementine Didde.
In addition, tlie e-mails also show that the Mega Conspiracy maintains high-powered computer web
servers at Dotcom Mansion for the purpose offurthering its activities. The FBI expects these servers
to contain records of communications between conspirators, and possibly evidence of the unlawful
reproduction and distribution of copyri^ted works via Megauoload.com and Megavideo.oom.
According to the e-mails and confirmed by records produced by Google Mo,, numerous e-mails
relatmg to the Mega Conspiracy’s activities have been sent from a dedicated IP address of
122.56.108.130, which law enforcement believes to be associated with Dotcom Mansion, Publicly
available sources confirm that this IP address is registered in the name Megastuff Limited.

M addition, the e-mails have demonstrated that inthe first quarter of2010, DOTCOM loaned
NZD $1.2SMto a New Zealand citizen named David Blackmore ("Blackmore"), As a term of the
loan, Blackmore offered a number of luxury vehicles as collateral. The e-mails further indicate that

9
KD-189

■■

, . V— ■“

Blaokmore sold a number of personalized license plates to DOTCOM, including the following; OI,
lOI, WOW; POOR, MAELA, GUILTY, HEAVEN, and STONED. A number ofthe vehicles owned
by DOTCOM and Megastuff Limited inNew Zealand, as well as the personalized license plates, Sms,
we previously owned by Blaokmore.

C. Van der Kolk Residence

According to e-mails obtained by legal process in the United States, sbce at least May 2011,
VAN DER KOLK and his wife, Junelyn van der Kolk, have resided in New Zealand at 37 Ngaiwi
Street, Orakei 1071, Auckland. These e-mails, together with other records, show that numerous e­
mails relating to the Mega Conspiracy’s activities have been sent ftom an IP address of
219.88.128.11, whichlaw enforcement beUeves to be associated with VANDERKOLK’s residence,
hi addition, numerous Skype transmissions have been sent from this IP address, and the e-mails
coiEfinn that employees ofthe Mega Conspiracy, including VAN DBR KOLK, regularly discuss its
activities via Skype-

On or about May 18,2011, an employee ofthe Mega Conspiiacy sent an e-mail to VAN DER
KOLK, arranging for the delivery of a laptop computer to VAN DER KOLK’s residence in
New Zealand. In response, VAN DER KOLK wrote, “You can charge the delivery expenses to the
company, as it's rnywork notebook."

D. peter Diggorv Brooke’s OfSce

Law enforcement has recovered e-mails sent between conspirators and Brooke. These e­ !
mails demonstrate that since approximately June 2011, Brooke has been performing accounting
services for MegastuffLimited. These services include, among other things, managing fhesalaries
for Megastuff Limited employees, and accounting for MegastuffLimited's income and expenditures.
The e-mails further show that Brooke’s business office is located at 107 Kitchener Road, Milford,
Auckland 0620, New Zealand, Jh addition, as described above, the New Zealand Companies Office r.
website confirms that since November 2011, Brooke has been a director for Megastuff Limited.

E. International Motorsuoid

Law enforcement has recovered e-maEs sent between DOTCOM and a representative of
Memational Motoisport, located at 9/11 Pollen Street, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021, New Zealand.
These e-mails demonstrate that as recently as March 2011, DOTCOM was housing a number of
vehicles with International Motorspoit. Ihese e-mails further show that hitemafional Motorsport
has performed custom work on a number ofthese vehicles.

F. Financial Assets

As described above, the Mega Conspiracy receives revenue through advertisements on its
websites and from paid premium subscriber memberships, inoluding from users located in

10
KD-190

,y

New Zealand. Customers primarily pay for premium membership through PayPal. According to
documents received fiom PayPal and confirmed by internal e-mails, between May 2005 and July
2010, the Mega Conspiracy received approximately USD $112.6M (equivalent to approximately
NZDS138.4M) through its PayPal account. Between Janutay 2008 and July 2010, the !
j!
Mega Conspiracy transferred approximately USD $63.8M (equivalent to. approximately i
NZD $78.5M) from its PayPal account to a DBS Bank accoimt located inHong Kong andheld in the
name ofMEGAUPLOAD nMlTlED (accountno. 788138032, the "Mega DBS account”). Both fire -
PayPal and the Mega DBS accoimt contain property thathas been, acquired as a result of, or directly
or indirectly derived from, criminal activity, namely, criminal copyright infringement and V

money laundering. '

Financial records demonstrate that the Mega Conspiracy has transferred frjnds into bank
accounts in New Zealand, including, but not necessarily limited to, the following: !-
f
1. HSBC Auckland, Account No. 3029340126642088, in the name of
BRAM VANDER KOLK.

E^mdls between the conspirators show that VAN DER KOLK. is the Programmer-in-Charge
I
for MEGAUPLOAD UMTIED and Megamedia Limited. Financial records demonstrate that from
April 2009 through March 2011, at least USD $3.15M was transferred from the Mega DBS account
into an account at HSBC Hong Kong, held in VAN DER KOLK’s name (account no. 083-643403­
833). These financial records ftirfher demonstrate that between April 2011 and May 2011, at least
NZD $407,500.00 was transferred from VAN DER KOLK*s HSBC Hong Kong account into an
accoimt at HSBC Auckland, held in VAN DER KOLK's name (account no. 3029340126642088).
The foilowdng are specific transfers that were made from VAN DER KOLK's HSBC Hong Kong
accoimt into VAN DER KOLK's HSB C Auckland account; -

Apr. 26,2011 NZD $7,500.00


Apr. 27,2011 NZD $150,000.00
May 3,2011 NZD $100,000.00
May 23,2011 NZD $150,000,00
r
2/ ASB Bank Limited, Auckland Branch, New Zealand, Account
No, 020192009920004, in the name of the Cleaver Richards Tmst.

Financial records demonstrate that from May 2011 Ihrou^ July 2011, at least
HKD $8,013,750.00 was transferred from the Mega DBS account into an account at ASB Bank
Limited, Auckland Branch (account no. 020192009920004, the “ASB account"), heldinthename of
the Cleaver Richards Trust onbehalfofMegastuffLimited. The following are specific transfersthat
were made from the Mega DBS account into the ASB accoimt:

May 16,2011 HKD $1,528,000.00


11
KD-191

1“

May 31,2011 HKD $1,606,500.00 !


June 22;2011 HKD $1,586,250.00 :
June 30,2011 HKD $1,619,250.00
July 21,2011 HKD $1,673,750,00

3. ASB Bank Limited, Ancldand Branch, Account No. 01183901S54S900,iji


the name of Megastuff Limited.

In 2010, the Mega Conspiracy transferred approximately NZD $9.9M from the Mega DBS
account into an account at ASB Bank Limited, Auckland Branch (account no. 011839015545900),
held in the name of Megastuff Limited.
;
4. ASB Bank Limited, Account No. 123107006652100, in the name of Kim
Tim JimVestor.

In 2010, the Mega Conspiracy transferred approximately NZD $3.2M fioin the Mega DBS
account into an account at ASB Bank Limited (account no. 123107006652100), held in the name of
Kim Tim JimVestor, an alias for DOTCOM.

S. ASB BankLimlted, Auckland Branch, Account No. 011839015551200, in


the name of KIM DOTCOM.

In 2010, the Mega Con^iracy transferred approximately NZD $250,000 fiomtheMega DBS
account into an account at ASB Bank Limited, Auckland Branch (account no.011839015551200),
held in the name of KIMDOTCOM. Also in 2010, the Mega Conspiracy transferred into this same
account approximately NZD $ II .6M &ora a Citibank account (account no. 59378921), held in the'
name of Kim Tim Jim Vestor, This Citibank account is located in Hong Kong and is funded by the
Mega DBS account .

6. Kiwibank Account No. 38-9011-0593922-00, in the name of


Megastaff Limited.

The Mega Conspirac^has established a business banking account in the name ofMegastuff
Limited at Kiwibank, Business Banking Triton Plaza, Albany, Auckland (account
no. 38-9011-0593922-00). In April 2011, the directors of Megastuff Limited authorized
Donald Keitli Cleaver to operate the account as a trustee, and to have sole signing authority on
the account. ' .

7. Computershare Investor Services Limited, Holder No. 14824385, in the


name of KIM DOTCOM.

Financial records demonstrate that on or about April 15, 2011, KIM DOTCOM invested
NZD $10,000,000 into New Zealand GovemmentBonds. These records showthat the bonds beheld
12
KD-192

..1%.....................

in the name of KIM DOTCOM^ in an account at Computershare Investor Services Limited (holder i
;
no. 14824385), located atthe following address: Private Bag 92119, Auckland 1142, Level 2,159
I
Hurstmere Road, Takapuna, North Shore City, New Zealand, In addition, financial records show that
the bonds were purchased with funds firom a Citibank account (account no. 59378921), held in fire
nameKimTim Jim Vestor, Assetforfhabove, this CitibankaccountislocatcdinHongKongandis i-
funded by the Mega DBS account
!
8. Wesfpac Bank Account No. 030104094384702, in the name of the
t
Simpson Grierson Trust, holder KIM DOTCOM.

Financial records show that KM DOTCOM has desisted an account at W^tpac Bank
! (account no. 030104094384702), located at 79 Queen Sheet, Auckland 1010, New Zealand, to
receive the interest generated by the New Zealand Government Bonds, In addition, on or about J
February 17, 2010, the Mega Cojcspiracy transferred into tiiis account approximately
NZD $1,200,000 from aDBS account (accountno, 7881226160), held in filename of Kim Tim Jim
Vestor. ITus DBS accormt is located in Hong Kong and is fiinded by the Mega DBS account,

9. Hotel Monetary Transfers.


i
In September 2009, the Mega Conspiracy transferred approximately NZD $20,000 from the
Grand Hyatt Hong Kong to the Hyatt Regency Auckland, located at Comer Waterloo Quadrant and
Princes Street, Auckland 1010, New Zealand Internal e-mails between conspirators further show
that John Paul Llasus Lo took possession of the money at the Hyatt Regency Auckland, for and on !
behalf of Kim Tim Jim Vestor, for the purpose of furthering the Mega Conspiracy’s activities.

TRF. offenses
i
!■

Title IS, United States Code, Section 2. Aiding and Abetting.


!
r

(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels,
commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.
I

(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another
would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.

Title 18, United States Code, Section 371. Conspiracy.

Iftwo or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, orto
defraud fire United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more
of such persons do any act to effeetthe object offile conspiracy, each shall be fined underthis title or
imprisoned not more than five years, or both. ,..

13
KD-193

I
V

Title 17, United States Code, Section 506. Criminal Copyright In^gement.
:
(a) Criminal infringement.-
t

(1) In general.- Any person who willfully infiinges a copyright shall be punished as
provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed-

(A) for purposes of conxmercial advantage or private financial gain; ;

(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during t

any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of I or more I

copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than S1,000; or I

(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, :


by making it available on a computer network accessible to members ofthe
public, if suchpersoakneworshouldhaveknownthatihe work was intended
. fox commercial distribution.

(2) Evidence,- For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or


distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficientto establish willfid
infringement of a copyright.
c

(3) Definifion,- In tiiis subsecfion, the term "work being prepared for commercial
distribution" means-
;
(A) a computer program, a musical work, a motion picture or other
audiovisual work, or a sound recording, if, at the time of imauthorized
distribution-
i

i
(x) the copyright owner has a reasonable expectation of commercial
distribution; and I

i i
(ii) the copies or phonorecords of the work have not been
commercially distributed; or
f
I
(B) a motion picture, if, at the time of unauthorizsd distribution, the motiofii
picture-
I

(i) has been made available for viewing in a motion picture exliibition
fecilily; and !
!
(ii) has not been made available in copies for sale to the general
public in the United States in a format intended to permit viewing

14

I
KD-194

outside a motion picture exMbitiou facility.

Title 18, United States Code, Section 2319. Criminal Uifringemeui of a Copyright.

(a) Any person who violates section 506(a) (relating to criminal offenses) oftitle 17 shall be !
i
punished as provided in subsections (b), (c), and (d) and suchpenalties shall be in addition
to any other provisions of title 17 or any other law.

(fa) Any person who commits an offense under section 506(a)(1)(A) of title 17-
i!
(1) shall be imprisonednot more thanSyears, or fined in the amount set forthin this
. tifle, or both, if the offense consists ofthe reproduction or distribution, including by i!
electronic means, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies orphonorccords,
of 1 or more copyrighted works, whichhave a total retail value ofmore than $2,500.

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956. Money Laundering..

(a)(1) Whoever, knowing that the property involved in afinancial transaction represents the
proceeds of some form ofmtiawfiil activift^, conducts or atternptsto conduct such a financial
transaction which in feet involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity-

(A)(i) with the intent to promote the carrying on of ^eoified unlawful activity; or

(B) knowing that the transaction is designed in whole or in part-

(i) to conceal or disguise tire nature, the location, the source, the ownership,
or the control ofthe proceeds of specified unlawful activity; or

(ii) to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law,

shall be sentenced to a fine of not more tiian $500,000 or twice the value of the property
involved in the transaction, whichever is greater, or imprisonment for not more than twenty
years, or both. For purposes ofthis paragraph, a financial transaction shall be considered to
be one involving the proceeds ofspechfied unlawfiil activity if it is part of a set ofparallel or
dependent transactions, any one of which involves the proceeds of specified unlawful
activity, and all of which are part of a single plan or arrangement.

(2) Whoever transports, transmits, or transfers, or attempts to transport, transmit, or transfer


a monetary instrument or funds from a place in the United States to or through a place
outside the United States or to a place in the United States from or tiirough a place outside

15
KD-195

■the United States-

(A) with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawfid activity; or

(B) knowing that the monetary instrament or funds involved in the transportation,
transmission, or transfer represent the proceeds ofsome form ofunlawful aofivify and
knowing that such trang)ortation, transmission, or transfer is designed in whole or in
part- ‘ .

(i) to conceal or disguise (he nature, the location, the source, the ownership,
or the control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity; or
■■

(ii) to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law,

shall be sentenced to a fine of not more than $500,000 or twice the value of the monetary
instrument or funds involved in the transportation, transmission, or transfer whichever is
greater, or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both, For the purpose of the
offense described in subparagraph (B), the defendant’s knowledge may be established by
prooffiiat a law enforcement officer represented the matter specified in subparagraph (B) as
true, and the defendant’s subsequent statements or actions indicate that the defendant
believed such representations to be true. I
(c) As used in this section-

(7) the term “specified unlawful activity" means-

(A) any act or activity constituting an offense listed in section 1961(1) ofthis
title,..;

(D) an offense under... section 2319 (relating to copyri^t infringement)

(9) the term “proceeds” means any property derived from or obtained or retained,
!
directly or indirectly, through some form of unlawful activity, including the gross i-
receipts of such activity.

(f) There is extraterritorial jurisdiction over the conduct prohibited by this section if-

16
KD-196

r*

(1) the conduct is by a United States citizen or, in the case of a non-United States
citizen, the conduct occurs in part in the United States; and
|;2) the transaction or series of related transactions involves funds or monetary
instruments of a value exceeding $10,000.

(b) Any person who con^iresto commit any offense defined in this section or section 1957
shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense the commission of
which was the object of the conspiracy.

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957. Money Laundering, .1

(a) 'Whoever, in any of the oiicumstances set forth in subsection (d), knowingly engages or
attempts to engage in a monetary transaction in criminally derived property of a valne i
greater than 110,O0O and is deriv^ fi'om specified unlawful activity, shall be punished as
provided in subsection (b).

(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the punishment for an ofifenseunderfbis section
is a fine under title 18, United States Code, or imprisonment for not more than ten years or
both.

(d) The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are- '

(1) that tire offense under this eectiontakes place in the United States or in the grecial
maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States;....

(f) As used in this seotion-

(2) the term "criminally derivedpropeity" means any property constituting, or derived
firom, proceeds obtained fiom a criminal offense; and , i

(3) the terms "specified unlawful activity" and "proceeds" shall have the meaning
given those terms in section 1956 of this title.

17
KD-197

I’*

I . '

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1961. F^cketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations.
Deflnitions.

As used in this chapter-

(1) ''racketeering activity" means... (B) any act which is indictable under any ofthe
following provisions oftitle 18, United States Code:... section 1956 (relating to the
laundering ofmonetaiy instruments), section 1937 (relating to engaging in monetary
transactions in proper^ derived from specified unlawful activity),... section 2319
(relating to criminal infringement of a copyright)...;

(2) “State” means any State of the United Slates, the District of Columbia, the
Comnionwealth ofPuerto Rico, any territory or possession of the United States, any
political subdivision, or any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof;

(3) "person" includes any individual or entity capable ofholding a legal or beneficial
interest in property;

(4) “entsiprise” includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other


legal entity, and any muon or group of individuals associated in fact although not a
legal entity; '

(5) "pattern ofracketeering activity” requires atleasttwo acts ofracketeering activity,


one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter and the last of which
ocouned within ten years (ejtcluding any period of imprisonment) after the
commission of a prior act of racketeering activity;

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1962. Prohibited Activities of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.

. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or
indirectly, firom apattem ofracketeering activity or through collection ofan unlawful debt in
which such person has participated as a principal within the meaning of section 2, title 18,
United States Code, to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the
proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation
of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign
commerce. ...
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through
collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or
control of ai^ enterprise vriiicb is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or

18
KD-198

'■ '•■•.r*Tr «'• 5 •' „• i,/. i

foreign commerce.

(c) It shall be unlawfid for any person employed by or associated with any enteiprise
engaged in, or the activities of vrfiich affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or
participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs throu^ apattem
of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.
;■

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of
subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section. '

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1963. Criniinal Penalties for the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.

(a) ‘Whoever violates any provision of section 1962 ofthis chapter shall be fiied under this
title or imprisoned not more than 20 years (or for life if the violation is based on a
racketeering activity for which the maximum penalty includes life imprisonment), or both,
and shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law-
f
(1) any interest die person has acquired or maintained in violation of section 1962;

(2)any-
f
l
(A) interest in; ;

(B) security of;

(C) claim against; or

(D) property or contractual right of any kind affording a source of influence


over;
any enterprise which the personhas establi^ed, operated, controlled, conducted, or
participated in die conduct of, in violation of section 1962; and
(3) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds which the person
obtained, direcdy or indirectly, ffomrscketeering actmty orurdawfol debt collection
in violation of section 1962.
:
The court, in imposing sentence on such person shall order, in addition to aig' other sentence
imposed pursuant to this section, that the person forfeit to the United States all property
described in this subsection. In lieu of a fine otherwise authorized by this section, a
defendant who derives profits or other proceeds from an offense maybe fined notmore than
twice the gross profits or other proceeds.

19
KD-199

-j n . ■.

(b) Property subject to crinunal forfeiture under this section includes- !

(1) real property, including things growing on, affixed to, and found in land; and

(2) tangible and intangibiB personal property, including rights, privileges, interests,
claims, and securities.

(c) All right, title, and interest in property described in subsection (a) vests in the United
States upon the commission ofthe act givingriseto forfeiture under this section. Any such
property that is subsequently transferred to a person other than the defendant may be the
subject of a fecial verdict of forfeiture and thereafter shall be ordered forfeited to the
United States, unless the transferee establish® in a hearingpursuant to subsection (1) that he
is a bona fide purchaser for value of such property who at the time of purchase was
reasonably without cause to believe that the property was subject to forfeiture tmder this
section. ’

PERSONS AND ENTITIES INVOLVED

1. KIM DOTCOM

Aliases: Kim Tim Jim Vestor; Kim Schmitz; Tim Vestor


Date of Birth: January 21,1974
Place of Birth: . Kiel, Germany
Citizenship; Finland, Germany ■
Passport Number. FinlaiidPX8027717, Finland 16783622
Addtess: 186 Mahoenui Valley Road, Coatesville, Auckland 0793,
New Zealand .
!■

2. WAYNE PHILIP TEMPERO t

Alias: • Unknown
I
Date ofBirfh; March 21,1956
Place of Birth; Unknown
, Citizenship: New Zealand
Passport Number; New Zealand AA820615
Address: • 186 Mahoenui Valley Road, Coatesville, Auckland 0793,
New Zealand t

!.
3. KERRY MICHAEL MCENIHNEY
i
Alias: Unknown
Date of Birth: Unknown
Place of Birth: Unknown

20


KD-200

* 1 ‘f

Citizenship; New Zealand


PassporiNtanber: Unknown
Address: 1010 New Zealand (No fiiriher information known)

4. GRANT IAN MCKAVANAGH

Alias: Unknown
Date of Birth: November 19,1969
Place of Birth: Unknown
Citizenship: New Zealand
Passport Number: Unknown
Address: 71 Susseat Street, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021, New Zealand
?
5. BRAMVANDERKOLK

Alias: Bramos
Date of Birth: September 30,1982
Place of Birth: Zwolle, Netherlands
Citizenship: Dutch
Passport Number; Netherlands NN186F741, Netherlands NH7416475
Address: 37 Ngaiwi Street, Orakei 1071, Auckland, New Zealand

6. JOHN PAUL LLASUSLO

Alias: Unknown
Date of Birth: August 16,1980
Place of Birth: Manila, Philippines
Citizenship: Philippines
Passport Number: Philippines RRO2O7099
Address: Unknown
I-
7. MONA AQUINO VERGA

Alias: MonaDotcomj Monica Verga Dotcom


Date of Birth: July 9,1988
Place of Birth: Muntinlupa, Philippines
Citizenship: Philippines
Passport Number; Philippines XX2022117
Address; 186 Mahoenui Valley Road, Coatesville, Auckland 0793,
New Zealand

21
KD-201

8. JUNELYN VAN DER KOLK

Alias; Junelyn Alexis AgcaoUi; Asia Agcaoili


Date of Birth: September 20,1977 or 1983 ;
Place of Birth: UflknowQ
Citizenship: Philippiues ■
Passport Number; PhUippmesXX0333336 !
Address: 37 Ngaiwi Street, Orakei 1071, Auokland, New Zealand
I
L
9. CHRISTIANEKERN

Alias: Unknown
Date of Birth: Unknown
Place of Birth; Unknown
Citizenship: - Unknown
Passport Number: Unknown
Address: Unknown

10. BLANCHE CLEMENTINE MCKEE

Alias: Unknown i:
Date of Birth: October 15,1988
Place of Birth: Taupo, New Zealand
Citizenship: New Zealand
Pas^ort Number: New Zealand EB374758
Address: Unknown
1.
11. ANDREW PHILLIP ALLART BOWDEN ■■

1
Alias: Unknown • i
Date of Birth: Unknown
Place of Birth; Unknown
Citizenship: Unknown
Passport Number: Unknown
Address: 186 Mahoenui Valley Road, Coatesville, Auckland 0793,
New Zealand
4
12. DONALD KEITH CLEAVER

Alias: Unknown
Date of Birth; Unknown
Place of Birth: Unknown ‘
Citizenship: Unknown

22
KD-202

Passport Numbejr; IMnown


Address; Unknovm

13. ROY VINCENT CRANE

Alias: Unknown -
Date of Birth: Unknown .
Place of Birth: Unknown
Citizeiisliip: Unknown
Passport Number: Unknown
Address: 281 Ridge Roadj Coatesville, Auckland 0793, New Zealand

14. AUVIJDLYSANTIAGOJUANICO
I

Alias; Juliana Palermo


Date of Birth: July 12,1985
Place of Birth; Philippines
Citizenship; United States
Passport Number: United States 405340417
Address; Unknown

15. ERIKA JOY HANSEN

Alias: Unknown
Date of Birth: June 3,1989
Place of Birth: Wanganui, New Zealand
Citizenship: Canada ;
i ■
Passport Number: Canada WR262920
Address:, Unknown

16, DAVID BLACKMORE

Alias: Unknown i
Date of'Birth: Unknown ■ ■

Place of Birth: Unknown f


Citizenship; Unknown I

Passport Number; Unknown t

Address: Unknown I
!
17. PETER DIGGORY BROOKE

Alias: Unknown
Date of Birth: Unknown

23
KD-203

.'•■T

V- ■ *- ....> * 'V,

I
Place of Birih: Unbiown
CitizensMp; Unknown
Passport Nwinber; Unknown .
1 Address: 107 Kitdrener Road, Milford, Auckland 0620, New Zealand
I

I
18. FINN HABIB BATATO

! Alias: Unknown .
Date of Birth: August 17,1973
Place of Biffii: Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Citizenship: Germany
Passport Number; Qermai^ 9514194063
Address: Ismaninger Strasse 86, Postcode 81675, Munich, Germany

19, JULIUS BENCKO

Alias: Unknown
Date of Birth: December 31,1976 1.
Place ofBirth: Roinava, Slovakia
Citizenship; Slovakia
Passport Number; Slovakia BJ4508468, Slovakia 3435348
Address: Juhoslovanskd 2502/5, 04013 Sidlisko Tahanovce, Slovakia

20. SVEN HENDRIK MICHAEL TRIES ECHTEBNACH

Alias; Unknown
Date of Birth: - April 30,1972 ■
Place of Birth: Kassel, Germany . 1

Citizenship: Germany
Passport Number: Germany 401153560, Germany C5HTLMG6F, !
Germany 400802542, Germany 401042022
Address; Freiherr-Vom-Stein-StraBe 46, 60323 Frankfurt am 1
Mam, Germany
21. MATHIAS ORTMANN i

Alias: Unknown
Date of Birth: October 29,1971 i
I

Place of Birth: Munich, Germany


CitizensMp: Germany
Passport Number; Germany CH1HFTX34, Germany 951456967 i
Address: Convention Plaza Apartments, I Harbour Road, Apartment
4216, Wan Chai;Hong Kong

24
KD-204

.. *.

22. ANDRUS NOMM


I
Alias: Unknowti
Date ofBirth: Febmary 6,1979
Place ofBirth: Estonia
Citizenship: Estonia '
Passport Number; Estonia KA0040658, Estonia K4172377
Address: ' dpetajate 14-17, Ida-Virumaa, Estonia

23, MEGASTURF LIMITED

Date oflnojrporation: March 15,2010 ■


Place ofIncorporation: New Zealand
i
Company No.: 2434372
Address: 186 Mahoenui Valley Road, Coatesville, Auckland 0793,
New Zealand

24. MEGAUPLOAD LIMIIED

Date of Incorporation: September 7,2005


Place of Incoiporation: Hong Kong
Company No.: 0835149
Address: Room A, 7/F, China Overseas Building, 139 Hennessy Road,
Wanchai, Hong Kong

25. YESTOR LIMITED

Date of Incorporation: September 6,2005


Place of Incorporation: Hong Kong
Company No.: 0994358
Address; Room A, 7/F, China Overseas Building, 139 Hennessy Road,
Wanchai, Hong Kong

ASSISTANCE REQUESTED .

Please ask the competent New Zealand authority designated to execute this request to
provide the assistance set forth below. We note that Detective Inspector Grant Womiald has
graciously agreed to provide the assistance sought, uppnthe approval of the Organised & Financial
Crime Agency New Zealand, Ks contact information is;

Detective Inspector Grant Womiald


Organised & Financial Crime Agency New Zealand
Police National Headquarters

25
KD-205

180 Molesworth Street, P.O. Box 3017 -


i

Wellington, New Zealand


Telephone: +64 4 470 4707 x41007
E-mail; Grant.Womiald@ofcan2;,govt.nz; Grant.Wormald@police.govt.nz
!
I
A. Bank Records
:
1. Please provide all records from ASB Bank Limited, located at 215-299 Lambton
Quay, Wellington, New Zealand, and at 23-29 Albert Street, Auckland, New Zealand, Ihat pertain to
the foliowing accoimts, for the period fiom the date of opening, or January 1,2009, whichever is
later, to the present; . i

a. Megastuff Limited, Account Number 01183-9015545900;


;
b. Kim Tim Jim Vestor, AccountNmnber 123107006652100;

c. Kim Dotcom, Account Number 011839015551200;


d. Cleaver Richards Trust, on behalf of Megastuff Limited, Account Number


020192009920004;

e. any and all accounts relating to: Kim Dotcom, Kim Tim Jim Vestor, Kim
Sohniitz, Biam van der Kolk, Megastuff Limited, and Cleaver Richards or
Peter Diggory Brooke as trustee for any of the above; and

f. any safe deposit box opened in the name, or for the benefit, of any of the I
parties mentioned above in paragraph (e).

2, Please provide all records from Kiwibank, located at Kiwibank Business Banking i
Triton Plaza, Albany, Auckland, New Zealand, that pertain to the following accounts, for the period
firom the date of opening, or January 1,2009, whichever is later, to the present: i

\
a. MegastuffLimited, Account Number 38-9011-0593922-00; !i
b. any and all accounts relating to: Kim Dotcom, Kim Tim Jim Vestor, Kim !
Schmitz, Bram van der Kolk, MegastuffLimited, and Cleaver Richards or
Peter Diggory Brooke as triistee for any of the above; and

c. any safe deposit box opened in the name, or for the benefit, of any of the
parties mentioned above in paragraph (b).

3. Please provide all records horn HSBC Auckland that pertain to the following
accounts, for the period firom the date of opening, or January 1, 2009, whichever is later, to

26
KD-206

- ^

the present:

a. Bram van der Kolk, Account Number 3029340126642088;


!
b. any and all accounts relating to: Kim Dotcom, Kim Tun Jim Vestor, KJm
Schmitz, Bram van derKolk, Megastuff Limited, and Cleaver Richards or ;
Peter Diggory Brooke as trustee for any of the above; and

c, any safe deposit box opened in the name, or for the benefit, of any of the
parties mentioned above in paragraph (b).
1
I
4. Please provide all records ftom Computerahare Investor Services Limited thatpertain
to the following accounts, for the period from the date of opening, or January 1,2009, whichever is ;
later, to the present:
1
a. Kim Dotcom, Holder Number 14824385; ■

b, any and all accounts relating to:' Kim Dotcom, Kim Tim Jim Vestor, Kim r
Schmitz, Bram van der Kolk, MegastuffLimited, and Cleaver Richards or ri
Peter Diggory Brooke as trustee for any of the above; and

c. any safe deposit box opened in the name, or for the benefit, of any of the i'
parties mentioned above in paragraph (b). . 1.
i
5. Pieaseprovide all records fi:om WestpaoBankthatpeitainto the following accounts,
for the period firom the date of opKoing, or January 1,2009, whichever is later, to the present:

a. Simpson Grierson Trust, holder Kim Dotcom; Account'


Number 030104094384702;

b. any and all accounts relating to: Kim Dotcom, Khn Tim Jim "Vestor, Kim :
Schmitz, Bram van derKdk, MegastuffLimited, and Cleaver Ridiaids or t

Peter Diggory Brooke as trustee for any of the above; and

c. any safe deposit box opened in the name, or for the benefit, of any of the
parties mentioned above in paragraph (b),
p*.

6. Please provide all records pertaining to toy and all aocormts and safe deposit b oxes
at any other bank in New Zealand traceable to the subject matter of this request for assistance.

7. The records requested in paragraphs A(l) throu^ A(6) above diouldiaclude, but not t-

be limited to:

27
KD-207

'•V.Ul i •—

a. original signature cardsj

b. documentation ofaccount opening (and ifapplicable, closing), including any


identification records of fire accoimt holder;

c. account ledger cards;

d. periodic accoimt statements;

e. records, (including checls, copied fiont and back) of all items deposited,
■withdrawn, or transferred;

f. records ofwire transfers, including all instructions, authorizations (written or


memos of verbal authorizations), documentation of dates, places, persons
receiving the funds, amount of monies transferred in or out, and Fedwire,
CHIPS, or SWIFT transmissions and details; ■

g, bank check purchases, including the purchase of teller’s checks, money


orders, and cashier's checks, and their re^ective registers detailing the
method of purchase, and person or firm purchasing;

h. documentation of due diligence efforts relating to the account;

i. correspondence to, firom, or on behalf of the account holder; and

j- memoranda related to the account.

The bank records requested inpaiagraphs A(l) through A(6) above are sought as evidence of
the listed offenses and for the purpose of determining whether property and assets in New Zealand
I
and elsewhere are the tainted proceeds of the listed offenses. These records will confirm that
members of the Mega Conspiracy have committed, attempted to commit, agreed to commit, or have I
aided and abetted others in committing, criminal copyrij^t infiingementfor purposes of commercial
advantage and private financial gain, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2,371, )
and 2319(b)(1), and Title 17, United States Code, Section 506(a)Cl)(A). Additionally, thesefecords !
■will confirin that members of the Mega Conspiracy have committed or agreed to commit money 1
laundering by transferring funds fix)m a place in the United States to or through a place outside the
United States, or to a place in the United States from or throu^ a place outside the United States,
■with the intentto promote the carrying on of the unlawfirl criminal copyri^t acti^vity, in violation of
Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1956(a)(2)(A) and (h). Also, tiiese records ■Mil confirm that
members ofthe Mega Conspiracy have, committed or agreed to commit racketeering by conducting
and participating ha the affairs ofthe Mega Conspireicy, directly or indireotly, through a pattern of
criminal copyil^t infiingement and money laundering, hrviolation ofTitle 18, United States Code,
Sections 1962(c) and (d). Finally, in addition to serving as evidence ofthe listM offenses, the bank

28
KD-208

.................... V
• '»* t»v r • •

records requested in paragraphs A(l) through. A(6) above will demonstrate that the assets at issue
belong to an individual or busings tiiat has unlawfully benefitted from the significant criminal
activity described abow - namely, racketeering, criminal copyright infringement, and money
■ laundering - and that the assets at issue are tdnted property, as frey have, wholly or in part, been t
acquired as a result of and are directly or indirectly derived from the above-descaibed significant i
criminal activity.

B. Business Records

Please provide all records fiom the Intemet Service Providers for the following IP addresses
and residences, including, but not Hniited to, subscriber infoimationj such as fire subscriber's name,
addresses, telephone numbers, and c-mail addresses; toE billingrecords; IP addresses andrecords of
session times and durations; lengfir of service and tjpes of services; and fire means and source
of payment:

1. IP address 122.56.108,130, associated with 186 Mahoenui Valley Hoad,


Coatesville, Auckland 0793, New Zealand (Intemet Service Provider is
believed to be Telecom New Zealand Limited, located at Level 7, Caro
Street, HTC Building, Hamilton Central, Hamilton 3204, New 2iealattd);

2. IP address 219.88.128.11, associated with 37 Ngaiwi Street, Orakei 1071,


Aucldand, New Zealand (Ihtemet Service Provider is believed to be
Orcon Ihtemet Ltd.); and

3. 5H The Prom, Coatesville, Auckland 0793, New Zealand (unknownintemsf


Service Provider),

A significant portion of the evidence involved in this investigation is electronic in nature


because tiie offenses were piimarily committed by electronic means. For example, a number of e-
mailshave been sent, and anumber offinancial transactions havebeen conducted, fromlP addresses
that are traceable to locations in New Zealand. The business records requested in paragraphs B(l)
through B(3) above are needed to confirm and firrther demonstrate that particular e-mails and
financial transactions were conducted from ^ecifio physical addresses. These records wQi
corroborate immigration records demonstrating that members of the Mega Conspiracy were in
particular locations when committing, attempting to commit, agreeing to commit, or aiding and
abetting others in committing, the listed offenses, namely, criminal copyri^t m&ingement, money
laundering, and racketeering. In addition, these records may also corroborate whether particular
electronic equipment, such as laptop computers and mobile telephones, were used by members ofthe
Mega Conspiracy in committing the listed offenses. Furthermore, these mcords will identify the
individuals who are responsible for subscribingto thelhtemet service associated with eachphysical
address, as well as their means and source of payment. .

29
KD-209

, - .*

C. Official Records

1. Please provide official records relating to flie New Zealand limited company
Megastuif Limited, includjng, but not limited to, the follovrfng:

a. registration records; i

, b, memoranda or certificates of the articles of association, registratioii, or


incorporation, including corporate bylaws; ;•
c. lists of shareholders, directors, nominee directors, and/or secretaries,
including pertinent declarations of trust; !!•
i

d. minutes of meetings;

e. stock books and stock transfer records;

f. power(s) of attorney; and

g, corporate dissolution documents. f-


2. Please provide official records relating to the visa applications and immigration
records, for the period from January 1,2009, to the present, of the following individuals:

a. Kim Dotcom (including in the names ofthe following aliases: Kim Tim Jim
Vestor, Kim Schmitz, and Tim Vestor);
1.
b. Bram van der Kolk;

c. John Paul Llasus Lo; !■

d. Mona Aquino Verga; and


!
e. ■ Junslyn van der Kolk.

This evidence is needed in order to show whether these individuals were in New Zealand during the
relevant time period. ,

3, Please provide official records relating to vehicles presently associated with the
following individuals and entity;

a. KimDotcom (including in the names offire following aliases: Kim Tim Jim
Vestor, Kim Sohmite, and Tim Vestor);

30
KD-210

■ 'r.-,'-...” .w
}

b, Bianx van <Jer Kolk;

c. John. Pay! Llasus Lo;

d, Mona Aquino Verga;

e. Jimeiyn van der KoUq and

f, Megastuff Limited.

The records .should include, but not be limited to, vehicle registration, title, property tax,
and insurance. Tins evidenceisneededinordertoidentifypotential vehiclesfhatmaybesubjeotto
restraint, with a view to eventual confiscation pmsuantto U.S, law, subject to tire operation of the -)
Jaws of New Zealand.

D. Search and Seizure of Evidence

1. Please ask New Zealand Jaw enforcement authorities to search the following
■ properties and to seize the items listed below in paragraph D(2):

a. Megastuff Limited’s corporate headquarters and the residence of Kim


Dotcom, located at 186 Mahoenui Valley Road, CoatesviJIe, Auckland 0793,
New Zealand;

b. 5H The Prom, CoatesvilJe, Auckland 0793, New Zealemd; and

0. Bram van der Kolk's residence, located at 37Ngaiwi Street, Orakd 1071,
Auckland, New Zealand.

2. Please seize all evidence, feats, and instrumentalities of the crimes being
investigated, including, but not limited to, the following;

a. indicia of occiq)ancy or residence in, and/or ovmership of, the property;

b. all .documents and things in whatever form relating to the reproduction and i
distribution of copyrighted works, including, but not limited to, motion t
pictures, television programs, musicalrecordings, electronic books, images,
video games, and other computer software;
\1
c. all records and things in whatever form, including communications, relating i
to the activitiefS of the Mega Conspiracy, including, but not limited to,
Megaupload, Megavideo, and MegastuffLiraited;

31
KD-211

.. 1(1

d. all bank records, deposit slips, withdrawal slips, chedcs, money orders, wire
transfer records, invoices, purchase orders, ledgers, and receipts; '

e. all documents that reference shipments, imports, exports, customs


or seizures; and

f. all digital devices, including electronic devices capable of storing and/or


processing data in digital form, including, but not limited to, central
processing units; rack-mounted, desktop, laptop, or notebook computers; web
servers; personal digital assistants; wireless communication devices, such as
telephone paging devices; beepers; mobile telephones; peripheral
input/output devices, such as keyboards, printers, scanners, plotters, monitors,
and drives intended for removable media; related communication device, !
i:
1‘
such as modems, routers, cables, and coimections; storage media, including
external hard drives, universal serial bus (“USB") drives, and compact discs;
and security devices. :

3. Please ask New Zealand law enforcement authorities to search International


Motorsport, located atO/ll Pollen Street, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021, New Zealand, andto seize all ;
records and documents relatingto MegastuffLimited or any ofthe individuals or entities listed under
"PERSONS AND ENTITIES INVOLVED," including, but not limited to, corre^ondence, business I
■ records,receipts, and invoices.

4. Please ask New Zealand law enforcement authorities to search the offices of
Peter Diggoiy Brooke, located at 107 Kitchener Road, Milford, Auckland, 0620, New Zealand, and
seize all records and documents relating to Megastuff Limited or any of the individuals or entities
listed under "PERSONS AND ENTDIES INVOLVED," including, but not limited to, I
correspondence, business records, accounting records, and aU official records listed above in V
Paragraph C(l). I

5. To the extent permitted under New Zealand law, please allow the following
. FBI Special Agents and U.S. prosecutor to aid NewZealand law enforcement agents and attorneys as
may be needed:

a. Michael Poston .
position; Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation
Telephone: (703) 603-3967
E-mail; Michael.Poston@ic.fbi.gov

b. Derek K. Christian
Position: Supervisory Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation
Telephone: (703) 603-3963
E-mail; Derek.Christian@icibi.gov

32
KD-212

A" “*
r

c. Patrick T. Winn
Position: Supervisory Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation
Telephone: (301)586-4678
!
E-mail: Patriok.Winn@ic.fbi.gov

d JayV.Prabhu
Position: Assistant United States Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office
Telephone: (703)299-3700
E-mail; JayPrabhu@usdoj,gov
Ii
E. Interviews of Witnesses and Targets

I. During or immediately following the searches requested above, please conduct


interviews ofthe following primary individuals, regardingthe topics listed belowin paragraph E(3);

a. Kim Dotcom;

b, Bram van dcr Kolk; 1


t

c. John Paul Llasus Lo; '


i
d. Mona Aquino Verga; and r

e. Junelyn van der Kolk.


I

DOTCOM and VAN DER KOLK are targets ofthe investigation, and theremalning individuais are I
considered witnesses.

2. At some jreasonahle time foliowing the searches, please conduct interwews of foe
following secondary individuals, all ofwhom are considered to be witnesses, regarding the topics
listed below in paragraph E(3):

a. Grant Ian McKavana^;

b. Christiane Kem;

c. Blanche Clementine Dickie;

d. Wayne Philip Tempero;

e. Kerry Michael McEnimey;

f. Andrew Phillip Ailmt B owden;

33
KD-213

•‘(••r** f* ► V.............................. ........ •V ‘

g- Donald Keith Cleaver;

it. Roy Vincent Crane;


i
i. Alvi July Santiago Juanico;

j. Erika Joy Hansen;

k. David Blackmore; and

1. Peter Diggoty Brooke.

3. Please interview these in.<hviduals conceming their relationship with the


Mega Conspiracy, including, but not limited to, the following areas:

a. any knowledge of the activities of the Mega Conspiracy, includtog, but not
limited to. Megaupload, Megavideo, and Megastuff Limited; I

b. any knowledge of the existence, reproduction, or distribution of copyri^t-


in^ging materials through any of the Mega Conspiracy's websites,
including, but not limited to, infringing copies, of copyri^ted television
programs, software, music, and motion pictures; and

c. any knowledge ofthe Mega Conspiracy's assets, including the type of asset,
amount, and geographic location.

4, The U.S. prosecutors and the FBI Special Agents will send specific questions to ask
during the interviews and request that New Zealand law enforcement take not^ as to the responses
and produce a final report ofthe interviews. We request tiiat the completedreportihen be forwarded i.

to the appropriate au&orities for transmittal to OIA,


1.
PROCEDTIRES TO BE FOLLOWED

A. Timinp for the Execution, of the Request

WerespectfuUyrequest that the collection and production of documents andiecords (above ;I


paragraphs A, B, and C) be executed as soon as possible, and that the search of locations and 1

interviews ofwitnesses (above paragraphs D and E) be executed at a future date to be determined by


U.S. authorities in consultation withNew Zealand authorities.

B. Bank and Business Records

Under U.S. law, foreign business records are usually admitted into evidence in aproceeding

34
;
KD-214

in tile United Stetes after the party offering tiiem proves, through the testimony at trial of a qualified
witness, that; •

1. the recordsproduced are true and accurate copies of originairecordsiathecustodyof


the business; • ■

2. the business made or kept the originals in the ordinary course of business and as a
regular business practice; and -

3, the originais were made, at or near the time ofthe occurrence ofthe transactions tiiey
record, by aperson who either had knowledge of tiiose transactions or received the
information firom a person with such knowledge.

The testimony of a qualified witness may be unnecessary at a trial lathe United States where
j
that witness makes or provides a written declaration in a foreignjurisdiction fc.g.. NewZealan^ that
(1) contains essentially tiie same information noted in items 1 through 3 above, and (2) subjects the
witness to criminal penalties under the laws of the foreign jurisdiction ifthe declaration is Mse,

Please require each banbibusinoss official producing records to: r

1. produce accurate and complete copies ofthe records requested;

2. complete and sign the attaclied Certificate of Authentici^ ofBusiness Records;

3. attach the completed certificate to the corresponding records produced by that


bankhusiness official; and . .

4. present the records with certificate, through or as directed by the appropriate :•


authorities in New Zealand, to OIA.

Please invite the officials producing the records to appear at some future date in the United
States, at the expense ofthe United States government, to testify in proceedings leiated to this case. (

C. Official Records

Under United States law, foreign official records are usually adnatfced into evidence in a
proceeding in the United States only after the party offering them proves, through a qualified vritaess
who either gives testimony at trial or provides a certification, that:

1. the records are true and accurate copies of original records maintained by a foreign
government office or agency; ' ' r

2. the foreign government office or agency is authorized by foreign law to maintam

35
KD-215

..........*•

them; and

3, the foreign official providing the records is doing so in his or her official capacity.

Because a certificahon containing the information noted above is usudliy sufficient, please:
i
1. have the appropriate custodian of official records complete the attached Certificate of
Authenticity of Foreign Public Documents; and

2. attach the completed certificate to the corresponding records produced by the official
and transmit the records with certificate^ through or as directed by the appropriate
authorities in New Zealand, to OIA.

Please invite the officials producing the records to appear at some future date in the United
States, at the expense ofthe United States government, to testify in proceedings related to this case. '
I
D. Seized Evidencfe

Please have the seizing officials complete the attached Certificate With Respect to Seized
Items and forward the seized articles with the certificate to the ^propriate authorities for fransmittai
to foe United States. Please ensure that the chain of custody of each item of evidence seized is
recorded, noting the following; the item seized; foe location where foe item was seized; the date of
the seizure; the name andposition offoe officer who seized the item; and foe name andposition of
each officer in the chain of custody of foe item. Please invite the officiai(s) producing foe seized
articles to appear at some future date in foe United States, at the expense of foe United States
government, to testify in proceedings related to this case.
!
We thank you for your assistance with this matter, and we ask that youkeep us apprised of all
developments.

Sincerely,

'(L
MaryBUen Warlow I
' Director ■
Office of Ihteinational Affairs

Attachments

36
KD-216

. V,

%
CERTIFICATE OF ATTmENTIcaTY OF BUSINESS RECOHDS
1

I, the uadersigaed, j with the understandhig that I am subject


!
to criminal penalty under the laws ofNew Zealand for an mtentionally lalse declaration, declare
i
that I am employed by or associated with ■Mltxl: intheposiUoiLOf_ t

and by reason of my position am authorized and :


qualified to malce this declaration.

I farther declare that the documents attached hereto are originals or true copies of records

which:

1. Were made at or near the time of the occurrence of the matters set forth tiierein (or
fi:om information transmitted by) a person with knowledge of those matters; . ;

2. Were kept in the course of regularly conducted busmen activity; :


3, Were made by the said business activity as a tegular practice; and
!
4. If not original records, are’duplioates of Ofiiginal records.
i
t
The originals or duplicates of these records are maintained in New Zealand. . 3

!
Date of Execution:

Place of Execution:

Signature

f
KD-217

CERTIFIGATE OF AXJTHENTiaXY OF FOREIGN FBBLIC DOCUMENTS

I j make this statement knoi^g that if I will&Ily state


■(hsssilr
i
anything fliat I know to be false or do not believe to be true, I may be liable to prosecution for a

criminal ofifense. r
I
(1) I am employed by ■MiMr j which is ^rdepartmenLofN^VL

ZsakndfpublSii.kifli/1- and in the course of its functions maintains official >■

records; :
\
(2) my official position is ■;

1
(3) in my official capacity, I have caused the production of hue and accurate copies of
I

records maintained by and


i
(4) those copies are described below and attached. f

r
Description of Documents:
i
i

i
I

•pilunahirel-
:
■mit i

Sworn to or affirmed before me. “lhsm£t

this day of, ^20,.


Oaths p^c(/;traUQfis/JtidfeffsJ Offficer/etc.
KD-218

■ CERTIFTCATE WITH RESPECT TO SEIZED ITEMS

I, ’jtaa<sZ' j make this statement knowing that ifI willfully state anything that I

know to be false or do not believe to be true, I may be liable to prosecution fer a criminal

offense. My position with the Government of New Zealand is . I

received custody of the items iisted.below from •fMams efsersatih on

-rntamj- I relinquished custody of the items listed below to


-mst
i
j at .fptaceh in
-fnamtcfpitioM}- on ■fiklej-

the same condition as when I received them (or, if different, as noted below).

. Description of items:

Changes in condition while in my custody:

-fshnalurel- -/MbteT- I
i

Sworn to or afinmed before m^ a

Ooltvi and Peclufaittins/Jui^c^Ql Q^cer/et^,


this day of. ^20__.

t
KD-219
KD-220
New Zealand arrests in US led global copyright infringement investigation of Megaupload.com and related sites. | New Zealand Police 8/01/18, 2(18 PM
KD-221
Home (/) » News (/news) » New Zealand arrests in US led global copyright infringement investigation of Megaupload.com and related sites.

Back to News (http://www.police.govt.nz/news)

New Zealand arrests in US led global copyright News search


infringement investigation of Megaupload.com and related Keywords Search

sites.
Friday, 20 January 2012 - 10:25am
National News
Four people have been arrested in the Auckland area today as part of an operation led by the US Department of Justice targeting Traffic and crime alerts
large scale criminal copyright infringement and money laundering around the world.
(/news/traffic-crime-
The arrests, carried out by the Organised & Financial Crime Agency New Zealand (OFCANZ) and New Zealand Police, follow a alerts)
mutual legal assistance request from the United States to arrest of individuals for the purpose of extradition.
Te Puna Station Road near SH 2
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is investigating a group of people who are alleged to be engaged in and facilitating criminal
(/news/updates/50581)
copyright infringement and money laundering on a massive scale.
Flooding
The group, known as the “Mega Conspiracy” allegedly operates Megaupload.com, an Internet website that offers file hosting and
distribution services. This site has been accused by the U.S. Department of Justice of reproducing and distributing infringing 05/01/2018 - 11:23am
copies of all types of copyrighted works, including movies, television programmes, music, software and books. Auckland Harbour Bridge
The estimated harm to copyright holders is believed to be more than US$500 million. (/news/updates/50579)

The four people were arrested at addresses in Coatsville and Orakei. A total of 10 search warrants were executed at residential and Flooding
business addresses across Auckland. 05/01/2018 - 10:34am
Those arrested have German, Dutch and Finnish citizenship. Some are resident in New Zealand. Thames Coast Road
(/news/updates/50578)
All will appear in the North Shore District Court this afternoon.
Road closed due to weather conditions
Assets have been seized including luxury cars with an estimated total value of up to NZ$6m. These include a Rolls Royce Phantom
Drophead Coupe valued at over NZ$500,000. Over NZ$10m has also been seized from NZ financial institutions. These have been 05/01/2018 - 9:58am
secured by New Zealand's Official Assignee pending the outcome of legal proceedings. Waipu (/news/updates/50526)
Detective Inspector Grant Wormald of OFCANZ says today's arrests were the result of several months coordination with the FBI Missing person
and US Department of Justice:
31/12/2017 - 9:24pm
"The FBI contacted New Zealand Police in early 2011 with a request to assist with their investigation into the Mega Conspiracy."
Coromandel - slow traffic
said Mr Wormald.
(/news/updates/50507)
"We were happy to provide this assistance. Staff from OFCANZ and New Zealand Police have worked with the US authorities over
Please be patient
recent months to effect today's successful operation.
30/12/2017 - 11:57am
"All the accused have been indicted in the United States. We will continue to work with the US authorities to assist with the
extradition proceedings." said Mr Wormald.

END

Media conference:
Detective Inspector Grant Wormald will hold a media conference at the North Shore Policing Centre, 52 Parkway Drive, Mairangi
Bay, Auckland at 1.00pm today. Please assemble at the ground floor reception.

As this is a US Department of Justice led investigation comment from New Zealand Police and OFCANZ is limited to today's
operation in the Auckland area.

The website of the US DOJ has further information about the investigation. www.justice.gov (http://www.justice.gov)

Media contacts:

New Zealand Police and OFCANZ: Grant Ogilvie, 027 236 9974

US Department of Justice: Public Affairs, 001 202 514 2007

Previous Waikato River search to recommence


as man remain unaccounted for
(/news/release/30620) Media conference: NZ arrests in U.S. led Next
copyright infringement investigation
(/news/release/30632)

Quick links Do it online


Vetting (/advice/businesses-and- Jobs (/about-us/jobs)
organisations/vetting)
Provide additional information for a
Firearms and safety (/advice/firearms- previously reported crime
and-safety) (https://forms.police.govt.nz/forms/crime-
reporting-line)
Tickets / infringements / speed cameras

http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/30630 Page 1 of 2
New Zealand arrests in US led global copyright infringement investigation of Megaupload.com and related sites. | New Zealand Police 8/01/18, 2(18 PM
KD-222
(/about-us/infringement-services) Vetting (/advice/businesses-and-
Publications and statistics (/about- organisations/vetting)
us/publications-statistics) Pay a ticket/infringement fee (/about-
Drugs and alcohol (/advice/drugs-and- us/infringement-services/payments/pay-
alcohol) infringement-fee-or-ticket)

Report a crime or incident (/contact- Change address on firearms licence


us/how-report-crime) (https://change.nzpost.co.nz/)

Child Sex Offender Register (/about- Request a visitor's firearms licence


us/programmes-and-initiatives/child-sex- (https://forms.police.govt.nz/firearms/visitors-
offender-cso-register) application)

Sexual Assault (/advice/sexual-assault) Subscribe to news alerts


(/subscribe/news-alerts)
policedata.nz - Recorded Crime Victims
& Offenders Statistics NZTA traffic information
(http://www.police.govt.nz/about- (http://www.nzta.govt.nz/traffic)
us/publications-and- All online options (/contact-us/do-it-
statistics/statistics/policedatanz) online)

Arabic (/advice/personal-community/new-arrivals/arabic) Chinese (/advice/personal-community/new-arrivals/chinese)

English (/advice/personal-community/new-arrivals/english) Farsi (/advice/personal-community/new-arrivals/farsi)

German (/advice/personal-community/new-arrivals/german) Hindi (/advice/personal-community/new-arrivals/hindi)

Japanese
(/advice/personal-community/new-arrivals/japanese) Korean (/advice/personal-community/new-arrivals/korean)

Somali (/advice/personal-community/new-arrivals/somali) Spanish (/advice/personal-community/new-arrivals/spanish)

Thai (/advice/personal-community/new-arrivals/thai) Vietnamese


(/advice/personal-community/new-arrivals/vietnamese)

About this site (/about-site) Copyright (/about-site/copyright) Contact (/contact-us) Accessibility (/about-site/accessibility)
Site map (/sitemap) FAQs (/advice/faq)

http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/30630 Page 2 of 2
Media conference: NZ arrests in U.S. led copyright infringement investigation | New Zealand Police 8/01/18, 2(18 PM
KD-223
Home (/) » News (/news) » Media conference: NZ arrests in U.S. led copyright infringement investigation

Back to News (http://www.police.govt.nz/news)

Media conference: NZ arrests in U.S. led copyright News search


infringement investigation Keywords Search
Friday, 20 January 2012 - 10:41am
National News
Detective Inspector Grant Wormald will hold a media conference at the North Shore Policing Centre, 52 Parkway Drive, Mairangi
Bay, Auckland at 1.00pm today. Please assemble at the ground floor reception.
Traffic and crime alerts
As this is a US Department of Justice led investigation comment from New Zealand Police and OFCANZ is limited to today's
operation in the Auckland area.
(/news/traffic-crime-
The website of the US DOJ has further information about the investigation. www.justice.gov (http://www.justice.gov)
alerts)
Media contacts: Te Puna Station Road near SH 2
(/news/updates/50581)
New Zealand Police and OFCANZ: Grant Ogilvie, 027 236 9974
Flooding
US Department of Justice: Public Affairs, 001 202 514 2007
05/01/2018 - 11:23am
Auckland Harbour Bridge
Previous New Zealand arrests in US led global (/news/updates/50579)
copyright infringement investigation of
Megaupload.com and related sites. Flooding
(/news/release/30630) Dotcom Mansion search continues Next
05/01/2018 - 10:34am
tonight.
(/news/release/30638) Thames Coast Road
(/news/updates/50578)

Road closed due to weather conditions

05/01/2018 - 9:58am
Waipu (/news/updates/50526)

Missing person

31/12/2017 - 9:24pm
Coromandel - slow traffic
(/news/updates/50507)

Please be patient

30/12/2017 - 11:57am

Quick links Do it online


Vetting (/advice/businesses-and- Jobs (/about-us/jobs)
organisations/vetting)
Provide additional information for a
Firearms and safety (/advice/firearms- previously reported crime
and-safety) (https://forms.police.govt.nz/forms/crime-
reporting-line)
Tickets / infringements / speed cameras
(/about-us/infringement-services) Vetting (/advice/businesses-and-
organisations/vetting)
Publications and statistics (/about-
us/publications-statistics) Pay a ticket/infringement fee (/about-
us/infringement-services/payments/pay-
Drugs and alcohol (/advice/drugs-and-
infringement-fee-or-ticket)
alcohol)
Change address on firearms licence
Report a crime or incident (/contact-
(https://change.nzpost.co.nz/)
us/how-report-crime)
Request a visitor's firearms licence
Child Sex Offender Register (/about-
(https://forms.police.govt.nz/firearms/visitors-
us/programmes-and-initiatives/child-sex-
application)
offender-cso-register)
Subscribe to news alerts
Sexual Assault (/advice/sexual-assault)
(/subscribe/news-alerts)
policedata.nz - Recorded Crime Victims
NZTA traffic information
& Offenders Statistics
(http://www.nzta.govt.nz/traffic)
(http://www.police.govt.nz/about-
us/publications-and- All online options (/contact-us/do-it-
statistics/statistics/policedatanz) online)

http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/30632 Page 1 of 2
Media conference: NZ arrests in U.S. led copyright infringement investigation | New Zealand Police 8/01/18, 2(18 PM
KD-224
Arabic (/advice/personal-community/new-arrivals/arabic) Chinese (/advice/personal-community/new-arrivals/chinese)

English (/advice/personal-community/new-arrivals/english) Farsi (/advice/personal-community/new-arrivals/farsi)

German (/advice/personal-community/new-arrivals/german) Hindi (/advice/personal-community/new-arrivals/hindi)

Japanese
(/advice/personal-community/new-arrivals/japanese) Korean (/advice/personal-community/new-arrivals/korean)

Somali (/advice/personal-community/new-arrivals/somali) Spanish (/advice/personal-community/new-arrivals/spanish)

Thai (/advice/personal-community/new-arrivals/thai) Vietnamese


(/advice/personal-community/new-arrivals/vietnamese)

About this site (/about-site) Copyright (/about-site/copyright) Contact (/contact-us) Accessibility (/about-site/accessibility)
Site map (/sitemap) FAQs (/advice/faq)

http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/30632 Page 2 of 2
Dotcom Mansion search continues tonight. | New Zealand Police 8/01/18, 2(19 PM
KD-225
Home (/) » News (/news) » Dotcom Mansion search continues tonight.

Back to News (http://www.police.govt.nz/news)

Dotcom Mansion search continues tonight. News search


Friday, 20 January 2012 - 7:11pm
Keywords Search
National News (http://www.police.govt.nz/sites/default/files/news/%272013-
New Zealand Police will tonight continue searching a property at 186 Mahoenui 03%27/car_pic_1.jpg)
Road, Coatsville, Auckland as part of the FBI and US Department of Justice led
investigation into criminal copyright infringement.

This morning three men were arrested at the house - called the Dotcom Traffic and crime alerts
Mansion - and a fourth man was arrested at a nearby property. (/news/traffic-crime-
The four men are Kim Schmitz/Dotcom, 37, German citizen resident in Hong alerts)
Kong and New Zealand, Finn Batato, 38, a citizen and resident of Germany,
Mathias Ortmann, 40, German citizen and resident in Hong Kong, and Bram van Te Puna Station Road near SH 2
der Kolk, 29, Dutch citizen also resident in New Zealand. (/news/updates/50581)

All are facing indictments in the U.S. for their part in an alleged criminal Flooding
copyright infringement and money laundering operation on a massive scale. 05/01/2018 - 11:23am
Police executed 10 warrants at addresses across Auckland today. Auckland Harbour Bridge
(/news/updates/50579)
A total of 18 luxury vehicles have been restrained and placed in the control of the Official Assignee. These vehicles include several
top end Mercedes, a Rolls Royce Phantom Drophead Coupe and a 1959 pink Cadillac. Various artwork, electronic equipment and Flooding
bank accounts were also restrained.
05/01/2018 - 10:34am
The vehicles are valued at around NZ$6m, while up to NZ$11m in cash was restrained in various accounts.
Thames Coast Road
Detective Inspector Grant Wormald says today's operation was a successful one despite a less than straightforward entry to the (/news/updates/50578)
Dotcom Mansion: Road closed due to weather conditions
"Police arrived in two marked Police helicopters. Despite our staff clearly identifying themselves Mr Dotcom retreated into the 05/01/2018 - 9:58am
house and activated a number of electronic locking mechanisms.
Waipu (/news/updates/50526)
"While Police neutralised these locks he then further barricaded himself into a safe room within the house which officers had to cut
Missing person
their way into.
31/12/2017 - 9:24pm
"Once they gained entry into this room they found Mr Dotcom near a firearm which had the appearance of a shortened shotgun.
Coromandel - slow traffic
"It was definitely not as simple as knocking at the front door" said Mr Wormald.
(/news/updates/50507)
All four men were denied bail in a hearing at the North Shore District Court this afternoon. They will appear again on Monday 23rd Please be patient
January when extradition proceedings against them will continue.
30/12/2017 - 11:57am
END

Editors note:

The attached pictures shows the Rolls Royce Phantom Drophead Coupe and several Mercedes vehicles which are now in the
control of the Official Assignee.

Contact:

New Zealand Police: Grant Ogilvie, 027 236 9974

US Department of Justice: Public Affairs, 001 202 514 2007


www.justice.gov (http://www.justice.gov)

Previous Media conference: NZ arrests in U.S.


led copyright infringement investigation
(/news/release/30632) Search at Dotcom Mansion ends Next
(/news/release/30639)

Quick links Do it online


Vetting (/advice/businesses-and- Jobs (/about-us/jobs)
organisations/vetting)
Provide additional information for a
Firearms and safety (/advice/firearms- previously reported crime
and-safety) (https://forms.police.govt.nz/forms/crime-
reporting-line)
Tickets / infringements / speed cameras
(/about-us/infringement-services) Vetting (/advice/businesses-and-
organisations/vetting)
Publications and statistics (/about-
us/publications-statistics) Pay a ticket/infringement fee (/about-
us/infringement-services/payments/pay-
Drugs and alcohol (/advice/drugs-and-
infringement-fee-or-ticket)

http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/30638 Page 1 of 2
Dotcom Mansion search continues tonight. | New Zealand Police 8/01/18, 2(19 PM
KD-226
alcohol) Change address on firearms licence
(https://change.nzpost.co.nz/)
Report a crime or incident (/contact-
us/how-report-crime) Request a visitor's firearms licence
(https://forms.police.govt.nz/firearms/visitors-
Child Sex Offender Register (/about-
application)
us/programmes-and-initiatives/child-sex-
offender-cso-register) Subscribe to news alerts
(/subscribe/news-alerts)
Sexual Assault (/advice/sexual-assault)
NZTA traffic information
policedata.nz - Recorded Crime Victims
(http://www.nzta.govt.nz/traffic)
& Offenders Statistics
(http://www.police.govt.nz/about- All online options (/contact-us/do-it-
us/publications-and- online)
statistics/statistics/policedatanz)

Arabic (/advice/personal-community/new-arrivals/arabic) Chinese (/advice/personal-community/new-arrivals/chinese)

English (/advice/personal-community/new-arrivals/english) Farsi (/advice/personal-community/new-arrivals/farsi)

German (/advice/personal-community/new-arrivals/german) Hindi (/advice/personal-community/new-arrivals/hindi)

Japanese
(/advice/personal-community/new-arrivals/japanese) Korean (/advice/personal-community/new-arrivals/korean)

Somali (/advice/personal-community/new-arrivals/somali) Spanish (/advice/personal-community/new-arrivals/spanish)

Thai (/advice/personal-community/new-arrivals/thai) Vietnamese


(/advice/personal-community/new-arrivals/vietnamese)

About this site (/about-site) Copyright (/about-site/copyright) Contact (/contact-us) Accessibility (/about-site/accessibility)
Site map (/sitemap) FAQs (/advice/faq)

http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/30638 Page 2 of 2