The Ministry of Justice has been approached for details on what happens next, but Dotcom’s lawyer, Ron Mansfield, has told RNZ there is more to come.

“We have much fight left in us as we seek to secure a fair outcome,” Mansfield said.

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said he was pleased his decision had been upheld.

In 2012, the US requested Dotcom be extradited from New Zealand to face charges of copyright infringement, money laundering and wire fraud.

Dotcom appealed this decision all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled the Megaupload founder was eligible for surrender to the US in November 2020.

Given the extradition request was outstanding, the Justice Minister was required to make a decision on the surrender and decided Dotcom should be returned to the United States in August 2024.

In a judicial review heard in May, Dotcom argued Goldsmith “erred in failing to find that the offences for which his extradition is sought are of a political character”.

The internet entrepreneur told the court the United States’ prosecution was motivated by “improper purposes”, including to appease copyright owners and deprive him of safe harbour protections under New Zealand’s Copyright Act 1994.

“Mr Dotcom further asserts that his surrender is sought in order to make an example of him for political gain, rather than for legitimate criminal prosecution,” the judgment said.

Justice Christine Grice found there was “no evidence to support Mr Dotcom’s allegation that the United States prosecution was politically motivated or carried out for any other improper purpose”.

She also found Dotcom’s contention that he would face grossly disproportionate treatment, making his surrender unjust and oppressive, was not made out.

Dotcom also challenged the legality of the Police Commissioner’s decision not to lay charges domestically, arguing it left him open to extradition and was made on the basis of political and other irrelevant considerations.

Justice Grice said the decision to charge two others in the Megaupload case, and not Dotcom, “was a proper exercise of the police’s discretion”.

“There were differences in circumstances between Messrs Ortmann and van der Kolk and Mr Dotcom which entitled the police to reach different conclusions with respect to the alleged co-offenders.

“There is no evidentiary basis for Mr Dotcom’s allegations of bias or unreasonableness,” she said in her judgment.

– RNZ