The Court of Appeal has reserved its decision on Kim Dotcom's latest attempt to hold onto his assets.
The court this morning heard legal arguments about issues including the wording, scope and merits of existing and potential freezing orders.
Dotcom's special counsel Tracey Walker has argued some attempts to seize Dotcom's assets relied on hearsay and other poor-quality or "speculative" evidence and amounted at times to a dubious "fishing expedition".
Hollywood studios Twentieth Century Fox, Disney, Paramount, Universal and Warner Brothers are suing Dotcom for US$100 million over alleged copyright infringement.
The film industry behemoths believe Dotcom has access to, and is getting rid of, major assets in New Zealand.
The companies filed a High Court application on May 27 seeking to freeze Dotcom's assets.
Dotcom's public statements in recent months about spending millions on bankrolling the failed internet Party have further annoyed Hollywood.
"Let's get real," Justice John Wild told Ms Walker.
"The respondents have every right to think that the appellant's assets are frozen..."
Ms Walker also raised questions about the "quality of evidence" presented by the studios and drew on comparisons with overseas jurisdictions to debate the merit of asset seizure processes in the complex and far-reaching Dotcom case.
She said there was also no guarantee a US court would make a judgment demanding even more of Dotcom's assets be frozen.
Ms Walker said the current freezing order application was directed at "preserving continued restraint of the restrained assets" and what was needed was a broader formal application.
The court also heard arguments about whether Dotcom had ever submitted to US jurisdiction.
In early 2012, indictments were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Alexandria, charging Dotcom with several copyright infringements.
"We don't have to prove he's submitted to the jurisdiction of the Virginia court," said Matt Sumpter, lawyer for the five companies.
Mr Sumpter said a "common sense" approach made a dispute on this topic disingenuous.
The studios are expected to ask Dotcom to also pay the costs of today's court hearing.
"We've acted conservatively, responsibly and in a very orthodox way," Mr Sumpter said.
He said this was in stark contrast to Dotcom's "very public statements about his use of millions of dollars for various purposes."
The five big studios have argued they had no idea when a previous freezing order was made that Dotcom still had millions of dollars to spend on projects like the internet Party.
The Court of Appeal ruled in February that search warrants of Dotcom's property, and the home of his computer programmer Bram van der Kolk, were legal.
These warrants were executed at the United States Department of Justice's request. That department wants Dotcom and Van der Kolk extradited on online piracy charges.
In late August, Dotcom was told to reveal his assets again. The Court of Appeal overturned an earlier decision not to extend the registration of US restraining orders for Dotcom, Van der Kolk and Megastuff Limited.
The Court of Appeal decision released on August 21 meant millions of dollars, several luxury cars, jewellery and other property remained frozen.
The ruling was also a setback for Mona Dotcom, who separated from Dotcom and unsuccessfully applied for her property to be excluded from the order.
Last month, police were told to return clones of computers and electronic devices to Kim Dotcom. These objects were seized in 2012 from Dotcom's Coatesville mansion.
But the same court said the seizure of electronic items including laptops, computers, portable hard drives, flash storage devices and servers, was unauthorised.
That ruling upheld a High Court declaration that the decision allowing police to give cloned copies of information harvested from Dotcom's devices to the FBI without direction from the Solicitor-General was unauthorised and unlawful.