16-09-25, 21:16
|
#208
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 50,616
Thanks: 28,767
Thanked 14,428 Times in 10,234 Posts
|
Dotcom Extradition Decision is Lawful, Review Denied Extradition Authorized
Kim Dotcom Extradition Decision Was Lawful, Judicial Review Denied
In 2024, New Zealands Minister of Justice approved Kim Dotcoms extradition to the United States, where the Megaupload founder faces charges of criminal copyright infringement, racketeering, and money laundering.
Andy Maxwell 17 SEP 2025
As expected, Dotcom requested a judicial review of the Ministers decision, arguing bias, bad faith, and the potential for grossly disproportionate punishment. The High Court found no argument persuasive.
After riding a wave of popularity, fame and fortune, in 2012 Kim Dotcoms filestorage empire, with Megaupload as the centerpiece, was dismantled in a high profile law enforcement operation.
Coordinated action in North America, Europe, Asia, and Oceania was unprecedented in a copyright case. The extent of the collaboration between the United States and New Zealand authorities was always controversial, with some aspects of the local investigation subsequently declared illegal.
Yet despite years of legal wrangling and the inevitable appeal against every adverse ruling, nothing could completely derail the case against Dotcom, or prevent New Zealands Supreme Court giving extradition the green light in 2020.
Minister of Justice Authorizes Extradition
Four years after the Supreme Court rendered its decision, in August 2024 New Zealands Minister of Justice authorized Dotcoms surrender to the United States.
What followed was an inevitable appeal by Dotcom, in this case an application for judicial review of the Minister of Justices decision. Dotcom claimed the decision was tainted by bias and bad faith, and further complicated by the favorable treatment of his former co defendants.
Application for Judicial Review
Until 2023, Megaupload coders Mathias Ortmann and Bram van der Kolk were also fighting extradition. After striking a deal with the New Zealand authorities, they admitted crimes attracting comparatively lighter sentences than those they would've faced in the U.S. Importantly, the deal eliminated extradition altogether.
Dotcoms request for judicial review described the disparity between U.S. and New Zealand sentencing as intrinsically grossly disproportionate
However, had Dotcom also been prosecuted in New Zealand, he believes he would've still been treated more harshly and received a far stiffer sentence than the 2.5 year prison terms handed to Ortmann and van der Kolk. He had previously asked the authorities to charge him in New Zealand but the police refused to do so.
A High Court ruling by Justice Christine Grice dated September 10 roundly rejects Dotcoms allegations. The Court found no evidence of any conduct amounting to a breach of the Extradition Treaty, bad faith, or an abuse of process.
If convicted, Dotcoms sentence in the United States is likely to be substantially higher than a sentence for similar offenses in New Zealand. The Court acknowledges that but indicates that the assumed severity is not enough to affect the decision to extradite
What happens next has not been disclosed, but options at this stage are much more limited than they were.
The exhaustion of every available option seems the most likely outcome but on what timeline is even more difficult to predict.
|
|
|