Setback for Nirav Modi in extradition case as UK judge rules Indian government's evidence admissible

Fugitive Indian diamantaire Nirav Modi faced another setback as a United Kingdom judge ruled in the government of India's favour by allowing the admissibility of its evidence against him.

The development improves chances of Modi's extradition to India.

The charges against the fugitive merchant centre around his firms Diamonds R Us, Stellar Diamonds and Solar Exports making fraudulent use of a credit facility offered by the Punjab National Bank
The charges against the fugitive merchant centre around his firms Diamonds R Us, Stellar Diamonds and Solar Exports making fraudulent use of a credit facility offered by the Punjab National Bank. Photo courtesy: Facebook/irav Modi

Following an additional hearing scheduled to rule on the admissibility of evidence presented before the Westminster Magistrates Court, Modi was remanded in custody till December 1. Both sides will make their closing submissions on January 7 and 8 and the judgement is expected a few weeks after that in 2021.

Modi's lawyer, Clare Montgomery QC, countered India`s arguments at the hearing by comparing the case with ex-Indian Navy officer and arms dealer Ravi Shankaran, who is in the UK and is yet to be extradited.

Arguing the overturning of Shankaran's extradition based on the government of India's evidence not meeting the UK extradition criteria, Montgomery told the court that statements under section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure in India (statements of witnesses recorded and signed by the police) were not admissible in extradition cases.

Referring to a report by the Law Commission of India, which claimed they "should never have any evidential value", Montgomery said, "The concern in India is these statements are not being taken from witnesses, and are rather the product of corrupt or incompetent conduct by police.''

Despite Montgomery`s strong opposition, district judge Samuel Mark Goozee decided to rule according to the judgement in case of Vijay Mallya, which said that statements under section 161 were valid in the court of law.

Helen Malcolm QC, representing the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) on behalf of the federal government of India, said the argument on Shankaran was "nonsense" and "a misguided point" and told Judge Goozee he was "bound by Mallya on (section) 161".

"Section 161 is the way the CBI takes witness statements in India. This would change the entire nature of evidence from India for extraditions," Malcolm added.

The charges against the fugitive merchant centre around his firms Diamonds R Us, Stellar Diamonds and Solar Exports making fraudulent use of a credit facility offered by the Punjab National Bank (PNB), known as "letters of undertaking" (LoUs).

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), arguing on behalf of the Indian authorities, sought to establish that a number of PNB staff conspired with Modi to ensure LoUs. The letters of undertaking (LoUs) were issued to his companies without required credit checks, without recording the issuance of the LoUs and without charging the required commission upon the transactions. This resulted in a fraud amounting to nearly USD 2 billion (INR 13,500 crore).

Author
CtoI News Desk
CtoI News Desk – CtoI

Singapore-headquartered online media company targeting Indian Diaspora across Singapore, US, UK and Dubai. Connected to India covers developments around Indians abroad, informing, engaging and entertaining its audiences.

Comments
Poll

What is your reaction to the Netflix reality show Indian Matchmaking?

  • Love it - Can't wait for Season 2
  • Hate it - Can't tolerate even one episode
  • It's like looking in the mirror- warts and all
  • I cringe but just can't stop watching
  • I am neutral, no strong feelings
Answer
Write your story

Contribute an Article

Learn more