Retired businessman Ian Norris today lost his high court challenge to an order for his extradition to the United States on charges of price-fixing and obstructing justice.
Two judges in London rejected argument on behalf of the former chief executive of manufacturing giant Morgan Crucible that extradition would be "unjust and oppressive" and that he would face "discrimination on grounds of nationality" if sent to America to stand trial.
Lord Justice Auld and Mr Justice Field are to consider at a later date whether Mr Norris has grounds for an appeal to the House of Lords.
At a hearing last October, Richard Gordon QC, for Mr Norris, argued that the price-fixing conduct of which he was accused did not amount to an offence under English law at the time it was alleged to have taken place - between 1989 and 2000. The indictment against him did not assert dishonest conduct by him or by Morgan Crucible.
Extradition in respect of conduct which could not be foreseeably characterised as criminal under English law at the time would be unfair and a breach of the European convention on human rights, it was contended.
The US authorities want Mr Norris, 63, to stand trial on seven counts of conspiring to fix prices and two counts of obstructing the course of justice.
Mr Norris, who has prostate cancer, denies accusations that he illegally fixed prices of components used to power trains under a cartel arrangement between Morgan Crucible and other companies.
Earlier last year, the high court rejected his legal team's argument that the decision to order his removal to the US was "unlawful and irrational" because the extradition treaty was "hopelessly lopsided" in favour of the US authorities.
The 2003 Act allows "designated countries" to use fast-track procedures and not have to produce prima facie evidence that a crime has been committed by fugitives they wish to extradite from the UK.
Mr Norris, who lives near Windsor, Berkshire, argued that the UK could not extradite American citizens in the same way because the US had not yet ratified the 2003 treaty. This meant there was an imbalance and a "lack of reciprocity".
Later, Alistair Graham, partner in solicitors' firm White & Case, which acted for Mr Norris, said moves would now be made to seek to appeal to the House of Lords "as soon as possible".
Mr Graham said: "The question whether price-fixing can be characterised as the old English common law offence of conspiracy to defraud is an absolutely critical point of law, not only in this case and therefore for future potential extradition requests, but also for UK competition law and UK businesses in general.
"We have been saying for more than two years that no criminal offence for price-fixing existed in the UK prior to the enactment of the 2002 Enterprise Act.
"Nobody in the UK has ever been prosecuted for price-fixing under the banner of conspiracy to defraud, for what we still believe are very sound legal reasons.
"Any decision in this matter has significant ramifications for large numbers of UK businessmen and women, who will be potentially exposed to price-fixing charges in relation to the period prior to 2002."