Dotcom facing extradition after losing appeal

The High Court has found that alleged internet pirate Kim Dotcom and his associates are eligible to be extradited to the United States.

In a ruling released yesterday, the court found that the evidence was sufficient to establish a prima facie case on all counts.

The decision was in response to an appeal by Dotcom and his associates against an earlier district court ruling that they should be surrendered to the US.

The US claims that Dotcom, Mathias Ortmann, Bram van der Kolk and Finn Batato were members of a worldwide criminal organisation that engaged in criminal copyright infringement and money laundering with estimated loss to copyright holders of more than US$500 million (NZ$697m).

The case has been touted as one of the largest criminal copyright cases brought by the US.

In December 2015 in the North Shore District Court, Judge Dawson found that Dotcom and his associates were eligible for extra- dition. They appealed to the High Court, claiming the judge made errors of law in virtually every aspect of his eligibility finding. The US also appealed against several aspects of the judgment.

Dotcom’s lawyer, Ron Mansfield, said yesterday the matter will now have to go the Court of Appeal.

A best-case scenario was a hearing at the end of the year, but it was more likely the case would be pushed out until 2018.

He was confident that what he called a ‘‘complex and unprecedented legal case’’ would be resolved in Dotcom’s favour.

In his 363-page ruling, Justice Murray Gilbert said he accepted one of the main planks of Dotcom’s argument: that online communication of copyright protected works to the public is not a criminal offence in New Zealand.

‘‘Accordingly, I have found, contrary to the view taken in the District Court, that this section does not provide an extradition pathway in this case.

‘‘However, I have concluded that the appellants are not correct in asserting that the general criminal law fraud provisions in the Crimes Act cannot apply in cases of copyright infringement and that such cases can only be prosecuted under the Copyright Act.

‘‘In short, these Crimes Act provisions, in combination with s 101B of the Extradition Act, provide other extradition pathways. I agree with the District Court judge that the evidence summarised in the record of the case is sufficient to establish a prima facie case on all counts. I also agree with his ultimate conclusion that the appellants are eligible for extradition on all counts for which their surrender is sought.’’ – Fairfax NZ