False. The bodyguard had a licensed shotgun, locked inside a safe. [1] Schmitz didn't own one, nor did he carry it. You could claim he knew someone who owned a gun, but that's about it.
> Also, he was arrested not only for copyright infringement, but also for racketeering and money laundering.
The NZ judge does not agree with your assessment. Maybe the judge is wrong, but: charges in the indictment relating to money laundering, racketeering and wire fraud are not separate criminal acts but dependent on the claim of criminal secondary copyright infringement[2].
The FBI claims that a website that offers users monetary rewards for uploading content, such as YouTube does, are conducting racketeering, money laundering and wire fraud if said uploads constitute copyright infringement. The judge did not rule if such legal claims are correct, but noted that any such claims depend on the copyright infringement and are not separate crimes to be considered.
[1]: (http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/6298389/Judge-res...)
Meanwhile, Dotcom's head of security, Wayne Phillip Tempero, is facing firearms charges for providing Dotcom with the semi-automatic shotgun which was found in Dotcom's safe room when police cut their way in during his arrest. Tempero said that the gun had been purchased under a valid New Zealand license, and Davidson told the court that the saferoom and gun were for the safety of Dotcom's family.
But yes, the safe was apparently open. I did try to find if Wayne Tempero case of gun possession was concluded, but I can't find any news article about it.
Thanks for following up. As for the firearms charges, I only read the allegations, I hadn’t found the bodyguard’s response. Your quote leads me to believe the bodyguard had at least some kind of license (if he didn’t have proof, it would be foolish to state so in court), whether that license covered the semi-automatic shotgun remains to be seen.
False. The bodyguard had a licensed shotgun, locked inside a safe. [1] Schmitz didn't own one, nor did he carry it. You could claim he knew someone who owned a gun, but that's about it.
> Also, he was arrested not only for copyright infringement, but also for racketeering and money laundering.
The NZ judge does not agree with your assessment. Maybe the judge is wrong, but: charges in the indictment relating to money laundering, racketeering and wire fraud are not separate criminal acts but dependent on the claim of criminal secondary copyright infringement[2].
The FBI claims that a website that offers users monetary rewards for uploading content, such as YouTube does, are conducting racketeering, money laundering and wire fraud if said uploads constitute copyright infringement. The judge did not rule if such legal claims are correct, but noted that any such claims depend on the copyright infringement and are not separate crimes to be considered. [1]: (http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/6298389/Judge-res...)
[2]: (http://www.scribd.com/doc/95215045/Torrent-Freak-Mega-Extra) and (http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/us-cites-united-nat...)