IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) The  Honorable  Liam  O’Grady Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil No. 1:14-cv-00969 ) ALL ASSETS LISTED IN ATTACHMENT A, ) AND ALL INTEREST, BENEFITS, AND ASSETS ) TRACEABLE THERETO, ) Defendants in Rem. ) MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF CLAIMANTS’  MOTION  TO DISMISS AND/OR STAY THE VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR FORFEITURE IN REM TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................. 2 ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................................................ 6 I. THE CLAIMANTS HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE FORFEITURE .................... 6 II. THE CIVIL FORFEITURE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION ............................................................... 6 A. No Federal Statute Recognizes Copyright Infringement Based On Extraterritorial Conduct ............................................................................................... 7 B. No Federal Statute Authorizes Criminal Copyright Infringement Prosecution Based On Secondary Liability.............................................................. 10 III. THE CIVIL FORFEITURE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THE PROPERTY AT ISSUE ............ 14 IV. THE CIVIL FORFEITURE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM ........................................................................................ 17 A. The Government Has Failed To State A Claim For Forfeiture Because It Has Not Properly Alleged Criminal Copyright Infringement As A Predicate ..................................................................................................................... 18 B. The  Government’s  Requested  Remedy  Of  Civil  Forfeiture  Is  Facially Disconnected, In Any Event, From The Underlying Crimes Alleged ................... 23 1. The Government Fails to Plead that the Defendant Assets Are Proceeds of Criminal Copyright Infringement ............................................ 23 2. The Government Fails to Plead that the Defendant Assets Are Traceable to Criminal Copyright Infringement. .......................................... 25 3. The Government Fails to Plead that the Defendant Assets Are Proceeds Traceable to Money Laundering .................................................. 27 V. IF  THE  GOVERNMENT’S  COMPLAINT  IS  NOT  DISMISSED  AS  A   MATTER OF LAW, FURTHER PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE STAYED .................. 29 -i- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases ALS Scan, Inc. v. RemarQ Communities, Inc., 239 F.3d 619 (4th Cir. 2001) ......................................................................................................... 9 Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Tech., Inc., 758 F.3d 516 (4th Cir. 2014) ......................................................................................................... 7 In re Bashas' Inc., 2013 WL 1932820 (D. Ariz. May 8, 2013) ................................................................................ 19 BC Tech., Inc. v. Ensil Int'l Corp., 464 Fed. Appx. 689 (10th Cir. 2012) .......................................................................................... 21 Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Football Club, Inc., 346 F.3d 514 (4th Cir. 2003) ....................................................................................................... 25 Burleson v. Toback, 391 F. Supp. 2d 401 (M.D.N.C. 2005) ........................................................................................ 16 Medical Supply Chain, Inc. v. Neoforma, Inc., 419 F. Supp. 2d 1316 (D. Kan. 2006) ......................................................................................... 22 Polar Bear Products v. Timex Corp., 384 F.3d 700 (9th Cir. 2004) ....................................................................................................... 25 United States v. Mekjian, 505 F.2d 1320 (5th Cir. 1975) ..................................................................................................... 22 United States v. Real Prop. & Premises, 657 F. Supp. 2d 1060 (D. Minn. 2009) ....................................................................................... 28 Cleveland v. United States, 531 U.S. 12 (2000) ....................................................................................................................... 29 CoStar Group, Inc. v. LoopNet, Inc., 373 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2004) ......................................................................................................... 9 Cole v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2012 WL 3133520 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2012) .............................................................................. 20 Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Fung, 2009 WL 6355911 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2009) .............................................................................. 8 Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385 (1926) ..................................................................................................................... 12 Dash v. Mayweather, 731 F.3d 303 (4th Cir. 2013) ....................................................................................................... 24 -ii- Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985) ............................................................................................................... 11, 13 Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2004) ..................................................................................................... 25 Elmo Shropshire v. Canning, 2011 WL 90136 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2011) ................................................................................... 8 Harrods Ltd. v. Sixty Internet Domain Names, 302 F.3d 214 (4th Cir. 2002) ....................................................................................................... 16 Home Design Services, Inc. v. J.F. Schoch Building Corp., 2012 WL 442008 (E.D. Va. Feb. 10, 2012)................................................................................ 20 Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S. Ct. 1659 (2013) ................................................................................................................... 7 Laker Airways Ltd. v. Sabena, Belgian World Airlines, 731 F.2d 909 (D.C. Cir. 1984) ..................................................................................................... 14 Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936) ..................................................................................................................... 30 Levinson v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co, 2006 WL 3337419 (E.D. Va. Nov. 9, 2006) ............................................................................... 29 Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419 (1985) ..................................................................................................................... 10 Los Angeles News Serv. v. Reuters Television International, Ltd., 149 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 1998) ......................................................................................................... 8 MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005) ..................................................................................................................... 10 Negron-Bennett v. McCandless, 2013 WL 5552236 (E.D. Va. Oct. 8, 2013) ................................................................................ 23 Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Inc., 337 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (N.D. Cal. 2004) ...................................................................................... 20 Paragon Services v. Hicks, 843 F. Supp. 1077 (E.D. Va. 1994) ............................................................................................. 19 Pettibone v. United States, 148 U.S. 197 (1893) ....................................................................................................................... 7 Plymouth Cnty. Retirement Association v. Primo Water Corp., 966 F. Supp. 2d 525 (M.D.N.C. 2013) ........................................................................................ 29 R.M.S. Titanic, Inc. v. Haver, 171 F.3d 943 (4th Cir. 1999) .......................................................................................... 14, 15, 17 -iii- R.M.S. Titanic, Inc. v. The Wrecked & Abandoned Vessel ("R.M.S. Titanic II"), 435 F.3d 521 (4th Cir. 2006) ....................................................................................................... 15 Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1361 (N.D. Cal. 1995) ........................................................................................... 10 Rundquist v. Vapiano SE, 798 F. Supp. 2d 102 (D.D.C. 2011) .............................................................................................. 7 Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (1977) ..................................................................................................................... 14 Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) ........................................................................................................ 10, 11, 25 Subafilms, Ltd. v. MGM-Pathe Commc'ns Co., 24 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 1994) ......................................................................................................... 7 Tire Engineering & Distribution, LLC v. Shandong Linglong Rubber Co., 682 F.3d 292 (4th Cir. 2012) ......................................................................................................... 7 United States, ex. Rel. Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374 (7th Cir. 2003) ....................................................................................................... 22 United States v. $6,190.00 in U.S. Currency, 581 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2009) ....................................................................................................... 10 United States v. $8,221,877.16 in U.S. Currency, 330 F.3d 141 (3d Cir. 2003) ........................................................................................................ 18 United States v. $1,399,313.74 in U.S. Currency, 591 F. Supp. 2d 365 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ...................................................................... 23, 24, 26, 28 United States v. $15,270,885.69, 2000 WL 1234593 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2000) ............................................................................ 18 United States v. 998 Cotton St., Forsyth Cnty., N.C., 2013 WL 1192821 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 22, 2013) ........................................................................... 27 United States v. Alerre, 430 F.3d 681 (4th Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................. 27, 28 United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius Baer & Co., 571 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2008)................................................................................................. 18 United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius Baer & Co., 959 F. Supp. 2d 81 (D.D.C. 2013) ................................................................................................ 6 United States v. All Funds on Deposit in any Accounts Maintained in Names of Meza or De Castro, 63 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 1995)........................................................................................................... 15 United States v. Christo, 129 F.3d 578 (11th Cir. 1997) ..................................................................................................... 28 -iv- United States v. Cone, 714 F.3d 197 (4th Cir. 2013) ................................................................................................. 11, 13 United States v. Daccarett, 6 F.3d 37 (2d Cir. 1993) ............................................................................................................... 18 United States v. Genova, 333 F.3d 750 (7th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................. 24, 27 United States v. Gotti, 457 F. Supp. 2d 411 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) ......................................................................................... 28 United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (1997) ..................................................................................................................... 11 United States v. Mankarious, 151 F.3d 694 (7th Cir. 1998) ....................................................................................................... 28 United States v. Mondragon, 313 F.3d 862 (4th Cir. 2002) .......................................................................................... 18, 21, 27 United States v. One 1998 Tractor, 288 F. Supp. 2d 710 (W.D. Va. 2003) ........................................................................................ 27 United States v. One 2003 Mercedes Benz CL500, 2013 WL 5530325 (D. Md. Oct. 3, 2013) .................................................................................. 27 United States v. One Gulfstream G-V Jet Aircraft, 941 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2013)........................................................................ 23, 24, 25, 27, 28 United States v. One Lincoln Navigator 1998, 328 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2003) ....................................................................................................... 6 United States v. Pole No. 3172, Hopkinton, 852 F.2d 636 (1st Cir. 1988) ........................................................................................................ 18 United States v. Real Prop. Located at 5208 Los Franciscos Way, Los Angeles, Cal., 385 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2004) ....................................................................................................... 6 United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (2008) ..................................................................................................................... 14 United States v. Winstead, 708 F.2d 925 (4th Cir. 1983) ....................................................................................................... 22 Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2012)........................................................................................................... 19 Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (2014) ................................................................................................................. 16 -v- Statutes 17 U.S.C. § 504 ................................................................................................................................... 24 17 U.S.C. § 506 .......................................................................................................... 11, 13, 19, 21, 22 17 U.S.C. § 507 ............................................................................................................................. 20, 21 17 U.S.C. § 512 ..................................................................................................................................... 4 28 U.S.C. § 1355 ............................................................................................................................. 7, 15 18 U.S.C. § 2 ............................................................................................................................... 13, 21 18 U.S.C. § 2323 ........................................................................................................................... 13, 19 18 U.S.C. § 981 ................................................................................................................ 13, 19, 23, 29 18 U.S.C. § 983 ................................................................................................................................... 27 Rules Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 ..................................................................................................... 18 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9 ..................................................................................................... 29 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 ...........................................................................................2, 6, 30 Supplemental Rule G ............................................................................................................... 2, 18, 19 -vi- INTRODUCTION Nearly three years ago, the United States Government effectively wiped out Megaupload Limited, a cloud storage provider, along with related businesses, based on novel theories of criminal copyright infringement that were offered by the Government ex parte and have yet to be subjected to adversarial testing. Thus, the Government has already seized the criminal defendants’  websites,  destroyed  their  business,  and  frozen  their  assets  around  the  world—all without benefit of an evidentiary hearing or any semblance of due process. Without even attempting to serve the corporate defendants per the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Government has exercised all its might in a concerted, calculated effort to foreclose any opportunity for the defendants to challenge the allegations against them and also to deprive them of the funds and other tools (including exculpatory evidence residing on servers, counsel of choice, and ability to appear) that would equip a robust defense in the criminal proceedings. But all that, for the Government, was not enough. Now it seeks to pile on against ostensibly defenseless targets with a parallel civil action, seeking civil forfeiture, based on the same alleged copyright crimes that, when scrutinized, turn out to be figments of the Government’s  boundless  imagination.    In  fact,  the  crimes  for  which  the  Government  seeks  to   punish the Megaupload defendants (now within the civil as well as the criminal realm) do not exist. Although there is no such crime as secondary criminal copyright infringement, that is the crime  on  which  the  Government’s  Superseding  Indictment  and  instant Complaint are predicated. That is the nonexistent crime for which Megaupload was destroyed and all of its innocent users were denied their rightful property. And that is the nonexistent crime for which the Government would now strip the criminal defendants, and their families, of all their assets. In resorting to civil forfeiture, the Government veers further astray. Notably, the Government  is  going  after  foreign  assets  that  lie  beyond  reach  of  the  Court’s  in rem jurisdiction, -1- based on allegations that surpass the outer limit of the law and are in any event divorced from the foreign assets at issue. For the reasons stated herein, Claimants respectfully contend that the Government’s  instant  Complaint  is  jurisdictionally  defective  and  otherwise  without merit such that the Court should dismiss it as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), (2), and (6) and Supplemental Rule G. Alternatively, to the extent the Court might permit (at least for the time being) the Government’s Complaint to remain pending, Claimants respectfully request that the Court at least stay the instant action just as it has stayed other parallel civil actions involving the same interested parties. In no event can these Claimants, whose assets are directly at issue, fairly be expected to litigate through civil proceedings, including what is sure to be extensive discovery, while their assets remain frozen and critical evidence remains beyond their reach. Stated simply, the Government should not be permitted to pummel Megaupload and its individual principals via civil forfeiture proceedings after restraining their assets and disabling their defense, ex parte, under criminal auspices, under these same theories. BACKGROUND Founded in 2005, Megaupload provided cloud-storage services, which affords collaborators in different remote locations shared online access to materials. Prior to being destroyed   in   January   of   2012,   Megaupload’s   primary   business,   Megaupload.com,   was   a   commercial website that offered a popular Internet-based storage platform for customers ranging from large businesses to individuals. Any Internet user who used the Megaupload.com website could upload a computer file. See Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem (“Compl.”)  ¶  18  (July  29,  2014) (Dkt. 1). Using software methods for data management that are standard among other cloud-storage providers and many businesses that rely on efficient data storage, Megaupload was able to reduce the -2- capacity needed to store hundreds of millions of files, many of which were duplicates. When a file is uploaded to storage, such a data management system employs automated processes to generate  an  identifier,  called  an  “MD5  hash,”  from  the  contents  of  the  file.    See USA v. Kim Dotcom, et al., Crim. No. 1:12-cr-3  (“Sup.  Ind.”),  ¶  23  (Feb.  16,  2012)  (Dkt.  34).1 Two identical files uploaded by two different users would generate the same MD5 hash. When duplication appeared  through  “the  same  MD5  hash,”  Megaupload would retain only one instance of the file, and would generate a different link for each individual user, called a Uniform Resource Locator (“URL”).    Sup.  Ind.  ¶  23.    Each  user’s  link  was  unique.    One  user  might  choose  to  keep  his   unique link private; another user might wish to share his link with a close friend or family member by way of an e-mail; and another user might make it more widely available by embedding it in a webpage. End users made these choices; Megaupload simply stored their files. Megaupload’s  income  was  derived  primarily  from  two  sources:    premium  subscriptions   and online advertising. Sup. Ind. ¶ 4; Compl. ¶ 37. Premium subscriptions could be purchased for as little as a few dollars per day or as much as $260 for life. Compl. ¶ 37. Premium users who paid the subscription fee enjoyed better and faster access. See id. ¶ 38. They were also entitled to longer-term   file   storage   on   Megaupload’s   cloud   system.     See Sup. Ind. ¶ 7. Subscription   fees   collected   during  the   company’s  existence   were estimated to exceed $150 million, whereas receipts from online advertising on Megaupload.com and affiliated sites were estimated to total a fraction of that, somewhere above $25 million. See id. ¶ 4. As with any cloud-storage service, or, for that matter, online service of any kind, Megaupload was susceptible to misuse by some customers. Any service that enables users to upload and share digital files across the Internet might be used to infringe underlying copyrights. 1 The  Government’s  Complaint  incorporates  the  Superseding  Indictment  by  reference.     See Compl. ¶ 16. -3-