The point being that the police are stating something ("these files were stolen") as fact prior to the trial. The assumption being that these facts need to be proven at trial. The same reason that the accused is called the 'suspect' and not the 'criminal' in police press reports.
However the police does call the victim "the murdered guy" and the place the arsonist burned "the burned down building". Some things are a simple statement of fact.
Similarly, the presence of "pirated files" is not something that is that difficult to examine and state as a fact pre-trial. And the other side would only win a libel trial if they could prove that this is not the case, which, I guess, it is. Else, they would be punished and counter-sued for that attempt too.
However the police does call the victim "the murdered guy" and the place the arsonist burned "the burned down building". Some things are a simple statement of fact.
Similarly, the presence of "pirated files" is not something that is that difficult to examine and state as a fact pre-trial. And the other side would only win a libel trial if they could prove that this is not the case, which, I guess, it is. Else, they would be punished and counter-sued for that attempt too.