>I mean seriously, how is this legal? Why can the U.S. hunt foreigners in forgeign countries?

I don't get how this is surprising to so many. He broke US law and they charged him. He hosted at least part of the site in the US, accepted money from a US undercover agent for advertising, profited in part from US based users[0]. They filed a criminal complaint and are requesting his extradition through an extradition treaty which the US has with most countries [1].

This case actually appears to be pretty above board. IMO the only thing he has going for him at this point is the fact that he is in Poland. He least has (even if small) a chance to not be sent to the US. Other countries will just throw your ass on a plane[2].

[0] - https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/file/877591/download

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradit...

[2] - https://www.wired.com/2013/09/dont-leave-home/

I was not aware that he hosted in the U.S. when i wrote that, i agree that this changes a lot. It's a stupid mistake that simply should not have happened.

Other than that i can only repeat:

> Let's say i sell candy with the profile of Kim Jong-un online, so that would justify North Korea to hunt me down in other countries and take me back under their jurisdiction? Gladly that's not how it works.

I don't think any country has an extradition treaty with the DPRK for obvious reasons

Perhaps Turkey would be a better example. We probably made the one we have during a more friendly time. I hear the government is arresting people for criticizing their President. So, it's not hard to make up a scenario with them now.

The treaty involving Turkey: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/71600.pdf

I think it would be far more difficult to arrest and extradite an Ukrainian in Ukraine, or a Pole in Poland. An Ukrainian in Poland makes it all far less a patriotic issue, so the focus is on the allegations.

true. but this still does not explain on which juristic base the US got involved. Its not like providing such a platform would be particulary illegal in europe.

The US does what the US wants. Where have you guys been?

I now learned that he hosted in the U.S. so it's pretty much his own fault really. I mean in their right mind would do that with anything remotely sensible?

He didn't actually host in the US, his DNS servers were in the US for a period of time..

His physical servers were actually hosted in Montreal (which might as well be in the US I suppose)..

Why would the US be involved if it was a tax issue? Why would he owe the US tax? I thought they were involved because of copyright/piracy.

i did not find any evidence that he broke such a law. given i dont know the exact circumstances and law, but seems nobody accused him of actual copyright issues but only providing a platform for distribution. which is afaik not illegal anywhere in europe.

The law he's accused of breaking is something like "providing tools which are mostly used for copyright violation".

The reason the US is involved is because KAT had, at some point, a bit of hosting in the US.

(I agree that it's weird that the US feels like they have jurisdiction here.)

But that explains it, hosting in the US is a mistake he probably should not have made. Kudos for providing this explanation, i feel much less scared and pissed now :)

Probably because foreign countries trade with US, so they need to maintain good relations. Also, I don't think EU or Ukraine care too much to protect this guy.

If you haven't noticed (and American citizen sometimes are kinda ignorant in that way): "EU" is not a country. It can't do sh in this matter. It's like saying "OPEC won't protect this guy"...

i dont doubt it was easy. but i question on which juristic base this was done. I dont get why the US is even involved, this guy seems to have no relation with the US.

The victims were US companies. (i.e. the media companies which own the copyright to the materials exchanged on KAZ). I disagree with a lot of copyright law, particularly criminal and international parts, but this is the USG belief of jurisdiction.

Not sure if you are serious, but i dont think that is how it works.

Let's say i sell candy with the profile of Kim Jong-un online, based on your answer that would justify North Korea to hunt me down in other countries and take me back under their jurisdiction? Gladly that's not how it works.

1) USA is not North Korea. Both because the USA has ~infinite power, and because it has (highly imbalanced) power relationships with most other countries -- particularly Poland and Ukraine who are basically clinging to the hope NATO (i.e. USA) will save them.

2) Selling candy with profile of the Dearest Leader is not recognized as a crime in most countries by treaties they've signed. Copyright crime is in many countries, hence it's extradition-possible.

2b) Copyright crime isn't a capital offense, so "but he might be executed" is not a bar to extradition here. Most countries would view lese majeste in Best Korea as a likely capital offense and wouldn't extradite on that basis alone.

3) Dude wasn't a citizen of the country where he was caught. Non-citizens have substantially inferior rights in most countries, particularly in this kind of matter.

4) Ukraine isn't in EU.

5) Because it's the ultimate factor here, it bears repeating: the US Government has essentially unlimited power globally. It is restricted primarily by its own policies, and by secondarily realpolitik concerns. Only in extremely few places is its power actually checked by another actor (Russia, China, and in some contexts, the EU, and in other contexts, Iran and North Korea).