Kim Dotcom loses his appeal against extradition, the case is now referred to Andrew Little

Internet entrepreneur Kim Dotcom lost his last legal battle against the extradition of New Zealand to the United States United.

Dotcom and three others – Matthias Ortmann, Bram van der Kolk and Finn Batato – have been charged with more than a dozen criminal copyright charges regarding the website sharing of files now gone, Megaupload, which is supposed to share pirated movies and other content

Stuff

The mansion was rented by Kim Dotcom in Coastville.

They face extradition to the United States, which claims to have been involved in a global criminal organization that has caused an estimated loss of more than 500 million US dollars.

After losing their extradition record in the North Shore Court District, and then on appeal to the High Court, the four men appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed their arguments on Thursday. .

READ FOLLOWING:
* Dotcom challenges extradition decision
* High Court upholds Dotcom's extradition judgment
* Dotcom's legal saga explained
* The Dotcom mansion legal
* The mansion Dotcom sold in private business

It is now up to Minister of Justice Andrew Little to decide whether extradition should take place.

With the impending decision, Dotcom tweeted Wednesday its support to his legal team.

GETTY IMAGES

Kim Dotcom talks while Bram van der Kolk looks on during a Committee Intelligence and Security hearing at Bowen House in 2013.

"My international legal team did a great job: 20 lawyers from New Zealand, US, Canada, Hong Kong and Germany no matter what happens tomorrow, thank you very much.I'm lucky to have such a caring, competent and hardworking team on my side. "

In a statement, the court explained Thursday that appeal had been dismissed because the US government had enough evidence to justify extradition.

"The United States relied on a series of extradition routes to seek the extradition of the appellants," the statement said.

"The Court has confirmed that all these extradition routes are open to the United States and that the United States has submitted sufficient evidence to support its argument on these routes."

In February, men's lawyers continued to fight extradition in the Court of Appeals after the High Court upheld the district court's previous ruling that they were eligible .

During the hearing, Grant Illingworth QC, attorney for Ortmann and van der Kolk, said: "In the district court, everything went wrong, he went absolutely, totally false."

"In the High Court, there were a number of errors that we say were made."

Illingworth's argument centered on an earlier extradition case that had been used to make the original decision.

In this case – the United States cullinane in 2003 – the courts had adopted an "incorrect approach" in establishing grounds for extradition based solely on He however stated that the decision should have been considered not only in under this treaty, but also under separate extradition laws in each of the two nations, he said.

That could The four men 's attorneys also challenged the validity of a notice sent by the then Minister of Justice to the district court judge asking for the issuance of. a warrant of arrest.

Illingworth stated that the notice was based on "misleading conduct", since information had been illegally collected by the Government Communications Security Office (GCSB)

. The Zelander police and the FBI just over six years ago

The raid led to 13 charges against the four men, including a racket conspiracy, conspiracy to commit copyright infringement and money laundering d & # 39; money. Tips