AFP Raid Channel 7 over Schapelle Corby

[azureline**]

AFP Raid Channel 7 over Schapelle Corby

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/australian-federal-police-raid-channel-7-over-schapelle-...

It must be a joke, surely???

VETERAN Channel Seven journalist Mike Willesee has hit out at the Australian Federal Police raid on the network’s headquarters this morning, saying it would not reveal anything because Schapelle Corby has not been paid.

There were “heated scenes” at Channel Seven’s Sydney headquarters today as its offices were raided by the AFP.

It is understood Federal police were looking for evidence of the lucrative media deal the Corby family reportedly signed on behalf of Schapelle for her first post-prison interview with Seven’s current affairs flagship program, Sunday Night.

[icyfroth]

---

@lind9650 wrote:

Who gave the order for the raid? Would be interesting to find out.

Even if Channel 7 paid for an intervew, and paid the money into her BILs account, I don't think the Australian law has a right to confiscate it out of a Bali Bank.

It is a crime that has occured in another country, under different laws. She has served all those years in a Bali jail and nothing of that has happened in Australia. She did not commit the crime here, she was not sentenced by an Australian Court. Australia did not grant her parole, so how and why do they think they have a right to take her money, if she ever gets some.

I don't care if Schapelle is guilty or innocent, but I do care that Australian authorities think they can meddle in foreign countries laws as if they were some superior beings.

Erica 

---

"Even if Channel 7 paid for an intervew, and paid the money into her BILs account, I don't think the Australian law has a right to confiscate it out of a Bali Bank."

Yeah they could.

 "Australia did not grant her parole, so how and why do they think they have a right to take her money, if she ever gets some."

"Under proceeds of crime legislation, any Australian derived income is liable to be forfeited."

In other words, an payment she receives from an Australian source (ie channel 7) is illegal. Aussies can't touch any payment she might get from any Indonesian source.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@azureline** wrote:

well, given your stance about other things, wouldn't the resources be better spent  in other areas? acting on warrants that might prevent tragedies like the child murdered by his father?

---

is that federal jurisdiction?

I didn't think that this involved the Federal Police?

I could be wrong though...

[retailtherapist_8]

---

@azureline** wrote:

well, given your stance about other things, wouldn't the resources be better spent  in other areas? acting on warrants that might prevent tragedies like the child murdered by his father?

---

This was an unspeakable tragedy. Watching the coverage it felt like being punched in the stomache. A beautiful innocent child ....my heart breaks for his Mother........   

[bluecat*dancing]

Very sad.

[retailtherapist_8]

Wow $800k in Bali would see her living in the lap of luxury for a life time......

[freakiness]

---

@thesbian* wrote:

My OH's mate is married to a CEO at Channel 7. The inside scoop is that the funds are being paid through an Asian network based in Hong Kong that has ties with Seven. The money will be paid to Mercedes's husband. Those who raise an eyebrow at Mercedes' soon-to-be ex husband getting his hands on Schapelle's money are forgetting that Mercedes has a couple of kids with this guy. Should he run off with the cash he would never see his kids again.

BTW, Mercedes is right that the amounts being mentioned are "ridiculous". The deal is for $800,000, no rights to international distribution or royalties following the first airing.

---

But Scapelle is supposed to live off air and charity, unlike Murdoch who can claim his windfall from the silly suckers in Australia and laugh all the way to the bank regardless of his ethics and criminal activities.

[cherry*135]

---

@azureline** wrote:

You can't see it?

I think it's a ridiculous waste of police resources.

---

Not really, if they can uncover $1m+ they can order be paid to the Govt instead of a Corby. 

Schapelle is an Australian citizen. The TV stations, magazines etc that may pay her for interviews etc are Australian.

The money our Govt confiscates as proceeds of crimes is given to other people who were victims of crime.

[cherry*135]

It is not likely Schappelle can settle in Europe ( unless either of her parents were born in a country there, which I am pretty sure they weren't).

She may not even be able to visit a lot of overseas countries being a convicted drug smuggler.. so who would give her permanent residence?

Mercedes and her husband have 3 children. Their separatoin may not  even be official. She may have moved out of the family home prior to Schapelles release to avoid media throngs.

[nevynreally]

---

@freakiness wrote:

---

---

But Scapelle is supposed to live off air and charity, unlike Murdoch who can claim his windfall from the silly suckers in Australia and laugh all the way to the bank regardless of his ethics and criminal activities.

---

Or, she could get a job and earn an income like the rest of us.

The Murdoch thing doesn't belong in this thread, it's irrelevant to it.

[cherry*135]

When the Govt/AFP freeze/confiscate money as proceeds of crime they do take into account  living costs of the person. they don't take all the money.  That is in the Proceeds of Crimes Act..

Magistrate may vary freezing order to allow withdrawal to meet reasonable expenses

             (1)  A magistrate may vary a * freezing order relating to an * account with a * financial institution so that the institution may allow a withdrawal from the account to meet one or more of the following relating to a person in whose name the account is held:

                     (a)  the reasonable living expenses of the person;

                     (b)  the reasonable living expenses of any of the * dependants of the person;

                     (c)  the reasonable business expenses of the person;

                     (d)  a specified debt incurred in good faith by the person.