Not exactly true. It would allow Dotcom to have more funds for a proper defense. This sort of stuff shouldn't even happen before you actually get charged as guilty. This is why I never really liked the "OPEN Act" alternative to SOPA either. Sites shouldn't get their funds seized and cut off before they even get a chance to defend themselves.
If they want to win this case, they'd better do all their homework flawlessly, dot all i's and cross all t's. If they don't, it will set a precedent that will frame future cases like this.
And there will be many more of them.
While companies may be questioned I much more question the ethics of this kim distributing copyrighted material without compensating the authors and then buying ferraris instead. Not a role model I'd like to prevail.
This makes a case for the mistake being deliberate, since it may have given the police the element of surprise or let them move quicker on the seizures.
Let's hope it's struck down but I'm going to guess they'll hold up the proper order under pressure from the US.
Blunder my ass, sounds like abuse of power that, against the police hopes, ended up being checked.
In any case, the prosecution should never be allowed to benefit from a process blunder that harms the defendant's ability to defend himself. If it's allowed, all sort of abuses will be committed "in good faith" only to be later "corrected" by such a half-hearted apology.
"Fruit of the poison tree" doesn't hold in the UK, for example.
Also, it would be pretty hard to seize all the assets of someone worth hundreds of millions.
This looks an awful lot like another examples of "incompetence, not malice".
If that's something that would come up anyway, it's smart to raise the issue themselves before the defense does it.