US Gov't Seeks To Keep Megaupload Assets Because Kim Dotcom Is a Fugitive 173
mrspoonsi writes with this excerpt from Billboard: 'On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Justice told a Virginia federal judge that Kim Dotcom and cohorts have no business challenging the seizure of an estimated $67 million in assets because the Megaupload founder is evading prosecution. The government brought criminal charges against Dotcom in early 2012, but he's been holed up in New Zealand awaiting word on whether he'll be extradited. The government got antsy and this past July, brought a civil complaint for forfeiture in rem, a maneuver to firmly establish a hold over money from bank accounts around the world, luxury cars, big televisions, watches, artwork and other property allegedly gained by Megaupload in the course of crimes. Dotcom is fighting the seizures by questioning the government's basis for asserting a crime, saying "there is no such crime as secondary criminal copyright infringement," as well as challenging how the seized assets are tied to the charges against Dotcom. But according to the U.S. government, Dotcom doesn't get the pleasure of even making the arguments. In a motion to strike, the government cites the doctrine of fugitive disentitlement, which bars a person from using the resources of the court if that person is aware of prosecution and is evading it.
Wait what? (Score:5, Insightful)
This strikes me as a blatant misuse fugitive disentitlement which is more intended for situations where someone is on the run and unlocatable or in a hostile country with no extradition treaty. NZ has a treaty and Dotcom (wow I hate that name) is going through the appeals system. That is not really 'evading' since evasion implies extrajudicial methods.... it strikes me more as the JoD wanting to circumvent international law when things do not immediately go their way.
Re:Wait what? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, because he is exercising his rights as a foreign citizen living in another country and going through the legally established international process for determining extradition, he is a 'fugitive' and thus his assets are fair game?
This is theft, plain and simple, just like "civil" asset forfeiture.
Re:Wait what? (Score:5, Insightful)
correct. civil asset forfeiture (what this is) is legal thuggery. at least in this case there's at least some relation to an international prosecution, as opposed to the sherriff deputy in east dumfuck taking your cash at a traffic stop.
Re: (Score:2)
Couple thoughts... first that people need to quit blaming police for asset forfeiture, and start blaming politicians that passed the stupid laws - and the only ones that can revoke them.
To take it a step further, most civil law should be revoked. It has nothing to do with right or wrong, and everything to do with who spends the most on lawyers.
Re:Wait what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Couple thoughts... first that people need to quit blaming police for asset forfeiture, and start blaming the people who elect politicians that passed the stupid laws - and the only ones that can revoke them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How about voting for people who understand that rights are something governments were formed to protect, not steal? When you have (R) and (D) fighting over which rights to steal, and most people ignorant that they both are stealing our rights, at the same time. And then you have people who say they vote (D) or (R) because the other steals more rights, while ignoring the rights that their side is stealing ...
Take for example the whole Amnesty thing Obama is going to do tonight. What I have not heard from eit
Re: (Score:2)
No, I meant rights. Governments were formed to protect rights. And you're correct, rights are immutable. But they can be stolen and abrogated in the name of the group, which is what the (D) and (R) parties are fighting over, which rights should we give up in the name of security, children, old people ....
Re: (Score:2)
What's wrong with cannibalism?
Prion diseases?
Re: (Score:3)
Couple thoughts... first that people need to quit blaming police for asset forfeiture, and start blaming the people who elect politicians that passed the stupid laws - and the only ones that can revoke them.
Not really. Its not as if a cop who looks in your car and sees a wad of cash is faced with an obvious crime which he, as a cop, is obliged to act on. The cops are totally able to say "oh look, obvious drug money! *yoink*" or to ignore it.
They, the cops, choose to steal from you. In the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Couple thoughts... first that people need to quit blaming police for asset forfeiture, and start blaming politicians that passed the stupid laws - and the only ones that can revoke them.
The discretion given police allows them to not enforce any law they don't like. The police could choose to stop enforcing all the stupid laws tomorrow. That's the point of the separation of powers. If the legislature passes a bad law, it can be "veto"ed by the executive not executing it, even if the law wasn't vetoed or the veto failed.
And as such, is actionable. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, because he is exercising his rights as a foreign citizen living in another country and going through the legally established international process for determining extradition, he is a 'fugitive' and thus his assets are fair game?
This is theft, plain and simple, just like "civil" asset forfeiture.
The USA has no problem stealing from their own citizens in their own country, its hardly a surprise that they have no problem stealing from citizens of other countrys who are also overseas.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Government needs to follow their own laws otherwise what's the whole point?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I certainly hope that's sarcasm.
Its both sarcasm and the reality of how government perceive their needs
Business as usual for US justice (Score:5, Insightful)
Google "asset forfeiture" and weep.
Asset forfeiture is a standard trick in the bag of US justice. They take your assets, then you then have to prove your innocence to get them back. The fact that this goes against the US Constitution, as well as international law? Irrelevant, I mean, what are you gonna do, call the police? When the police are the thieves, that's not very useful...
The US is a police state pretending to be a democracy. Lot's of people haven't been stepped on yet, so they can continue ignoring this unpleasant reality.
Re:Business as usual for US justice (Score:4, Informative)
Google "asset forfeiture" and weep.
Reading Stop and seize [washingtonpost.com] makes for a scary experience.
Re: (Score:3)
John Oliver had a hilarious and very sad skit [youtube.com] where he talked about this. The Daily Show [cc.com] also had a routine. It's just sad.
In many municipalities, the government starts a suit against the property itself so that it's much easier to keep all the loot.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Business as usual for US justice (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.newyorker.com/magaz... [newyorker.com]
Under civil forfeiture, Americans who haven't been charged with wrongdoing can be stripped of their cash, cars, and even homes.
http://gothamist.com/2014/01/1... [gothamist.com]
How The NYPD's Use Of Civil Forfeiture Robs Innocent New Yorkers
Any arrest in New York City can trigger a civil forfeiture case if money or property is found on or near a defendant, regardless of the reasons surrounding the arrest or its final disposition.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10... [nytimes.com]
“Who takes your money before they prove that you’ve done anything wrong with it?”
The federal government does.
Using a law designed to catch drug traffickers, racketeers and terrorists by tracking their cash, the government has gone after run-of-the-mill business owners and wage earners without so much as an allegation that they have committed serious crimes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We've lost the country the moment we gave government the power over the people, rather than making sure the people always had the power over government. The only thing that will fix this is another bloody revolution. But the government gives enough free bread and circuses to keep the people distracted and satiated in their slavery.
Tonight's Imperial Action is just another circus, designed to undermine Citizens rights while distracting people using the word "reform". Who can be against "reform"???
Re:Business as usual for US justice (Score:5, Interesting)
Schlumberger made, tested, and certified the part that failed. Releasing all the oil into the Gulf. Yet everyone blames the company that was using the part as it was designed to be used.
Yet no one even seems to know who they are.
Re: (Score:1)
But BP was still the one using the product in question when the damage was done, so they're still to blame for picking the cheaper supplier. This is the cost of poor quality. In an unlimited-liability world the public would hold BP liable for actually doing the damage, and BP would then sue Schlumberger for damages and probably win. If either company was uncomfortable with this risk they could purchase liability insurance.
Re:Business as usual for US justice (Score:5, Informative)
No - BP was under fire because when the part (or multiple components) failed, alarms went off. The oil rig team in charge of responding to those alarms went "God those things are annoying and nothing is ever wrong when they go off, just disable the alarms."
The next time the alarms were supposed to go off, they could not because they were disabled, so nobody responded to an alarm that did not sound.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/23/deepwater-horizon-oil-rig-alarms [theguardian.com]
Also, congrats on getting me to log-in for something worth of commenting on for the first time in ages.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
These assets are not even held in the USA, how can they possibly have jurisdiction on these assets? (such as a watch presumably taken from his home address).
Re: (Score:3)
"a hold over money from bank accounts around the world, luxury cars, big televisions, watches, artwork"
These assets are not even held in the USA, how can they possibly have jurisdiction on these assets? (such as a watch presumably taken from his home address).
Lets assume you're right and they can't... he has to show up in court to challenge it... see the what they are doing now?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
His lawyer has to show up.
And whos going to testify?
Re:Wait what? (Score:4, Informative)
The US Government routinely seizes the assets of its adversaries, even US Citizens in order to force them to appear in court. Just like this... They take your money, knowing full well they have no right to... but, to dispute it, you have to show up in court or testify about yourself in such a way that could lead to further prosecution.
Remember how they busted Al Capone? Tax evasion? They knew for a fact how he got his money, but they also knew that to prove he was innocent he'd have to admit to how he got his money. So, despite violating his rights, the spirit of the law, and perverting the justice system. they got him anyway. Win at all costs...
Re: (Score:2)
The US Government routinely seizes the assets of its adversaries, even US Citizens
What you're talking about is the US Government seizing the assets its adversaries have parked in the USA.
I'm not sure why the US Government thinks it can seize foreign assets.
That's not how jurisdiction works.
Re: (Score:3)
The US Government routinely seizes the assets of its adversaries, even US Citizens
What you're talking about is the US Government seizing the assets its adversaries have parked in the USA.
I'm not sure why the US Government thinks it can seize foreign assets.
That's not how jurisdiction works.
Of course it does. Any court in Europe could rule that a US citizen owes them money, then apply to have assets from the US seized and sent back. It's covered under treaty and happens all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
So, despite violating his rights, the spirit of the law, and perverting the justice system.
Capone had a lot of money and didn't pay taxes on it. That is simple tax law. Even if where he got the money was legitimate he still would have committed tax evasion. I don't see how it violates his rights, the spirit of the law or perverted the justice system. Capone has no right to get away with tax evasion. The spirit of the tax evasion law is to ensure people pay taxes on income. Capone did not do that. The justice system is tasked to uphold those laws.
Capone just plead the fifth when asked where he got
Re: (Score:2)
Remember how they busted Al Capone? Tax evasion? They knew for a fact how he got his money, but they also knew that to prove he was innocent he'd have to admit to how he got his money. So, despite violating his rights, the spirit of the law, and perverting the justice system. they got him anyway. Win at all costs...
Actually they used the tax code properly. He failed to report income and was tried and convicted. He could have reported it and paid taxes on it and avoided prosecution.
Re: (Score:2)
"more intended for situations where someone is on the run and unlocatable or in a hostile country with no extradition treaty"
Don't forget, the US legal system put copyright and security theater offenses near the same level as more traditional capital offenses.
Re: Wait what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am a legal layman; but that is what struck me. We have an extradition treaty with the Kiwis. Based on our 'enthusiastic' diplomatic style it's probably even the one we wanted.
To assert that somebody currently in extradition proceedings is a 'fugitive' is either to claim that the terms of extradition of that country are total bullshit, or basically the same as saying that appealing a conviction is a subtype of prison escape attempt.
Re: (Score:2)
basically the same as saying that appealing a conviction is a subtype of prison escape attempt.
No, Appealing a conviction is a legal measure to released from detention while an escape attempt is an illegal measure to release oneself from detention. See the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am a legal layman; but that is what struck me. We have an extradition treaty with the Kiwis. Based on our 'enthusiastic' diplomatic style it's probably even the one we wanted.
To assert that somebody currently in extradition proceedings is a 'fugitive' is either to claim that the terms of extradition of that country are total bullshit, or basically the same as saying that appealing a conviction is a subtype of prison escape attempt.
"Fugitive" is a term, not the law. The law allows judges to remove your right to use the courts if you so much as refuse to return to the US.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2466:
(1) after notice or knowledge of the fact that a warrant or process has been issued for his apprehension, in order to avoid criminal prosecution—
(B) declines to enter or reenter the United States to submit to its jurisdiction;
So, yes, if you go to an extradition hearing, instead of hopping on a plane, a judge can immediately bar you from using the courts for any purpose.
IANAL... So I really don't know how this law passes the 1st Amendment...
Congress shall make no law... abridging ... the right of the people ... to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Re:Wait what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. He's a criminal and an asshole, but the government is responding with criminal assholery.
The man runs what amounts to organized crime as a conspiracy supporting international copyright infringement in violation of domestic laws and trade agreements in force in many countries. He runs this from New Zealand. We have legal processes providing for the extradition and seizing of assets of an international criminal through agreements with the country within which the criminal resides in.
In this case, it seems the US government wants to dismiss all those legal processes and just throw a huge tantrum. We can't get him extradited? Well guess what? He's not liable to us. He doesn't belong in court; he's not a fugitive because he was never in the US after being charged, has no reason to be in the US, and isn't a US citizen. He's not legally required to show up in US court until the country he's a citizen of claims so; if he's a German citizen in NZ, and NZ extradites him, Germany can throw a huge hissy fit.
This whole thing is woven with conflicting legal implications (NZ may be legally allowed or even obligated to extradite him) and potential diplomatic incidents. The US government is trying to violate all the rules.
Re: (Score:2)
In the end, I wouldn't be surprised if any case the US had at all for extradition is ruined by all of the misdeeds they've done in their attempt to 'get' him. They're really overplaying their hand here (as the DoJ has a tendency to do) and it's going to end up biting them (as has happened several times in the past).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
sounds like a witchhunt to me
You're not wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
The man runs what amounts to organized crime as a conspiracy supporting international copyright infringement in violation of domestic laws and trade agreements in force in many countries. He runs this from New Zealand.
What the fuck? How do you get this brainwashed?
Wow.
Re: (Score:2)
It happens to be true.
Look up the legal definition of "conspiracy", and come to understand copyright laws. When people say, "Oh, I just linked to torrents and provided the tracker; I don't actually host copyright work," they are saying, "Oh, I just sold guns, ammunition, and the addresses of doctors who performed abortions; I didn't actually murder anyone for pro-life activism." Both are conspiracy to commit a criminal act.
A step too far [Re:Wait what?] (Score:3)
It's a tricky case. Basically, the doctrine says that a fugitive can't say "I'm not subject to this court" (by fleeing justice) and simultaneously use the court to his advantage, in different aspects of the same matter.
I am not a lawyer (IANL), but as far as I can see, this case is very similar to Degen v. United States (1996). In that case, the Supreme Court explicitly said that the government was not justified in using the doctrine of fugitive disentitlement to dismiss a challenge of forfeiture.
Reference
Re: (Score:2)
actually, obama is giving a speech on tv tonight about giving amnesty to aliens.
I think this nails it (Score:5, Interesting)
FTFA, Dotcom's lawyer:
The issue is the government basically is looking to use the fugitive disentitlement doctrine as procedural mechanism to avoid arguing merits of criminal action.
The case seems to have no merit, they're probably reluctant to bring it to a trial. I think they were probably hoping for a plea in the first place, to avoid a trial and the associated oversight, and didn't think it would go this way or drag out this long.
Other fugitives (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Other fugitives (Score:5, Insightful)
Those are all little fish. Let's go for some important criminals.
Henry Kissinger: The Trial of Henry Kissinger [wikipedia.org]
George W. Bush: The Bush Administration’s Liability for 269 War Crimes [uswarcrimes.com]
Richard Cheney: CheneyWatch [cheneywatch.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Obama didn't go around drumming up support for an offensive war that killed hundred of thousands.
Maybe not on the same scale, but he sure does love bombing other countries and wants to send a few thousands troops. They're all warmongering scumbags.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not sure I blame Bush for "starting" a Global War
Expanding a Global War beyond all reason, yes. But starting it? No, that was the terrorists who started it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At least that's how Cheney spun it.
Re: (Score:2)
To a certain extent, there are 2 strong factors here.
One is that high level politicians are a "Good Ole Boys Club" who won't jail one another without severe provocation. If that weren't true, there would be no photos of old presidents meeting one another and smiling, instead there would be photos of fistfights and stabbings.
The other is that there's a recognition that the other party will someday get back into power: If Bush Jr had jailed Clinton for some of his obvious crimes, Obama would have jailed Bush
Re: (Score:2)
In my opinion we need to start holding politicians accountable for their actions. Currently it seems the legalization of bribes and free speech of corporations while the rest of the country has their right to speak publicly only in free speech zones and the removal of their assets without any proof of wrongdoing just doesn't sit well with me.
Re: (Score:2)
Silly foreigner, only American citizens are human beings with rights.
Re:Other fugitives : Fixed it for you (Score:1)
Silly foreigner, only rich American citizens are human beings with rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Silly foreigner, only American citizens are human beings with rights.
I suggest that you go for a drive with $500 in cash in your car. When the police stop you and find this cash, explain this to them. (this assumes you are in the USA, of course)
Re: (Score:3)
There are no outstanding extradition requests for McAfee or Knox, so I'm not sure what your point is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Er, McAffee is wanted for murder in Belize. Knox is wanted in Italy and will be tried in absentia.
But neither have extradition requests pending. McAfee has charges pending but they've never made it to a judge. Knox is probably going to be extradited but hasn't yet.
Until the U.S. government gets an extradition request they aren't required to, and shouldn't, do anything.
Re: (Score:2)
As none of the countries who have charges against these people have requested extradition I don't see your point.
Re: (Score:2)
Short answer ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The US has more or less been co-opted to be the enforcers of the copyright cartels, and are willing to bend their (and anybody else's laws) to have a "prosecute at any cost and to hell with the law" mentality.
Since they've been unable to successfully argue in court that he should be extradited, they're going for the strong arm tactic of property theft.
They're basically putting the cart before the horse, and saying "he's guilty because we say so, and since he won't come here and confess, we'll just take all his stuff".
From the sounds of it, they haven't accused him of a crime which actually exists, since there is no statute.
So everything else is just bullshit, lies, and posturing.
I can't wait until some foreign court rules that all of some American official's stuff should be siezed because he's been tried in absentia for war crimes.
Because Americans would scream and go "yarg, we're not under your jurisdiction" despite frequently doing the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
"I can't wait until some foreign court rules that all of some American official's stuff should be siezed because he's been tried in absentia for war crimes."
Well, to this and other points above about trying Bush et al., there's a reason why the USA - together with other shining examples of democracy such as China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Israel etc. - have NOT signed up to the ICC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Do as I say, not how I do
Re: (Score:2)
No, they really didn't... no legal grounds anyway...
Of course, war isn't about law, no matter how much people like to say it is... The reality is that the winners decide what happens, no more or less...
Re: (Score:2)
No, they really didn't... no legal grounds anyway...
Of course, war isn't about law, no matter how much people like to say it is... The reality is that the winners decide what happens, no more or less...
Those are insightful comments. Some German and Japanese war criminals were tried, but no one from either side was tried for using systematic rape of as a weapon of war, though it was used on all sides.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_camp_brothels_in_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Ugh, formatting, the br tags have to be on separate lines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They're basically putting the cart before the horse, and saying "he's guilty because we say so, and since he won't come here and confess, we'll just take all his stuff".
Not quite. Since Dotcom was indited by a Grand Jury here is a more accurate description.
A Grand Jury has found that there is sufficient evidence to to bring to trial charges for activities of Megaupload which is controlled in part by Kim Dotcom. As it is illegal to benefit from illegal activities and Kim Dotcom's assets are proceeds of the activities under charge these assets are seized. Kim Dotcom may present himself and defend himself against these charges. If found not guilty the assets will be returned. Please note that these assets may be used in defence against the charges.
I wonder? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
If you get 'em from the DOD outlet store, five.
Re: (Score:1)
The US is a police state? (Score:1)
That's what everyone is saying here. Yeah, so they are... Big deal... You can thank the voters, for being, in a recently made famous word, "Stupid", stupid for willingly believing the lies. Tell me, what am I supposed to feel towards those people who did this?
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, Well I guess you weren't in Alabama in the 50s (the feds acted like the good guys then), though your shot at Reagan is half true. The decline accelerated dramatically in the 80s, and the voters kept on asking for more of the same. I could sympathize if they were forced...
Re: (Score:1)
Well, it appears there's a big enough audience to take the show on the road. So far it's a hit. What can I tell ya?
Save us some time (Score:2)
Might as well stop fooling ourselves that we're a nation of laws. The actions of the US government are indistinguishable from those of an unlimited monarchy; they take what they want. Soon the burden of writing, re-writing, and re-interpreting little laws to justify it will be onerous, and they'll stop.
Then we won't have to (and indeed won't be allowed to) waste time talking about it.
Get the fat fuck out of my country (Score:1)
He lied on his application for residency. Hopefully he gets deported. Then its Germany's problem.
Fugitive (Score:2)
Only people who are fugitives have extradition preceding lodged against them. Therefore since Dotcom has extradition preceding against him he is is a fugitive. All the extradition preceding do is determine if the country that the fugitive is hiding in agrees that the charges are valid. It does not change the fact that he is a fugitive. If he gets spotted in the US before the statute of limitations runs out he will be arrested.
It is interesting that Dotcom wants to use the US legal system to get his assets b
Re: (Score:3)
since Dotcom has extradition preceding against him he is is a fugitive
A fugitive is someone on the run from justice, not someone willingly submitting to standard extradition protocol under an extant treaty.
Man, arguments would be so much easier if I were willing to just make up definitions to suit my purposes, like you. Oh well.
Re: (Score:2)
He is on the run from justice in the US. Whether or not he is going through extradition in another country is a separate issue.
Maybe a New Zealand Court (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Seems this is standard practice in the US: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09... [nytimes.com]
However the world spotlight is on this case.
Re: (Score:2)
And why exactly does the US think Dotcom doesn't have the right to defend himself?
He does have that right which he can exercise by coming to the US and presenting himself for trial. He does not have the right to select which parts of the legal system to defend himself against.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if NZ does not grant extradition he is still a fugitive from the US justice system.
The DoJ is claiming that following a treaty that the US government itself established is criminal.
No, the seizing of assets is not based on being a criminal but a fugitive.
They might as well bring up the NZ courts for aiding a fugitive, since the NZ courts are processing the extradition request.
Since US law does not cover foreign countries and international law allows countries to refuse extradition your supposition is incorrect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
According to this [wikipedia.org] a defendant must be present at the beginning of a trial except under certain circumstances. Dotcom's charges do not fall under these exceptions.
Re: (Score:2)
It's less common than I thought, but still happens.
Re: (Score:2)
The important part being that in all US cases the defendant appeared at an arraignment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have some mechanism for seizing US government assets? Particularly if you aren't another government?
Yes.
It's called a 'scoped high-powered rifle in the hands of tens of thousands of citizens.
Apply to political leaders until resistance to citizens seizing (reclaiming their stolen) assets stops.
Strat