(Wine-Searcher) - The never-ending story of Rip-off Rudy continues.

A United States Attorney has rebutted claims made by wine fraudster Rudy Kurniawan in an appeal against his conviction, saying that the original conviction, prison term and fine were all perfectly correct, according to papers filed in the appellate court in New York.

Kurniawan's lawyers had filed motions to dismiss the conviction back in April. The main thrust of the appeal centered on the search of the home following Kurniawan's arrest on March 28, 2012. FBI agents arrested him on the porch of his property, before searching it and discovering counterfeit labels, empty bottles and other evidence of Kurniawan's fraud.

They later obtained a search warrant for the property.

However, the appeal argued that the initial search was a breach of Kurniawan's rights under the Fourth Amendment, as the arrest warrant did not give agents the right to search the property and, therefore, any evidence collected should have been suppressed. That was argued at the original trial, but dismissed.

Kurniawan's attorneys also argued that, since the people who bought the wines were high-net-worth individuals, the financial impact was lower and that should have been taken into consideration when sentencing was carried out.

However, Preet Bharara, US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, argued in submissions that the arrest was entirely correct, as the agents involved in Kurniawan's arrest had probable cause to search the apartment, in the latest chapter in the seemingly endless saga of Rudy Kurniawan's wine fraud.

The submissions also raise some details about the level of fraud Kurniawan was involved in, noting that, after attending rare and expensive wine tastings in New York, he asked the sommelier to send the empty bottles to his home. These bottles were then filled and re-labeled before being on-sold. Between 2004 and 2006 he received 18 shipments of empty bottles at his home.

Credit card records showed he had also purchased glue, paper and inkpads to doctor the labels.

The submission went on to argue that the original penalties fell within acceptable guidelines.

"Kurniawan argues that his wealthy victims, who placed a high value on rare wines, were not actually victimized to the full extent of their losses, despite the very real money that they spent on the very phony wines Kurniawan sold them," it said.