LONDON: Just two months after UK Home Secretary Priti Patel ordered the extradition to India of an estimated $2 billion Punjab National Bank (PNB) wanted diamond trader, Nirav Modi lost the first leg of his extradition appeal in the High Court. Have given. ) scam case.
The case was up for an "on paper" decision presented for appeal before a High Court judge, to determine whether the Home Secretary's decision on April 16 or the Westminster Magistrates Court's February decision in favor of Modi's extradition. There is no ground to appeal against. To face charges of fraud and money laundering in India.
(ads2)
A high court official confirmed that the appeal was denied "on paper" on Tuesday, giving Johri, 50, an opportunity for his lawyers to renew his case in a brief oral hearing in the high court. is. A "leave to appeal" application for a judge to determine whether it can proceed to a full appeals hearing.
Under the legal guidelines, Modi, as an appellant, has five working days to apply for such oral consideration, giving him time till next week. If a renewal application is made, it will be listed before a High Court judge for a hearing. It is understood that Modi is planning to make such an application.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), appearing in court on behalf of the Indian authorities, said it was looking forward to the next phase of the process.
"We will oppose any appeal proceedings from the [government of India] government of India if they are allowed to appeal," the CPS said last month.
Meanwhile, Modi is behind bars at Wandsworth Prison in southwest London since his arrest two years ago on March 19, 2019.
In his ruling in February, District Judge Sam Goozy concluded that the diamond merchant has a case to answer before Indian courts and that the bar for extradition under UK law does not apply to his case.
As part of a much broader judgment, the judge concluded that he was satisfied that there was evidence on which Modi could be convicted in connection with the conspiracy to defraud PNB.
"Prima facie the case is established," he said, with regard to all charges brought by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which include money laundering, intimidation of witnesses, and disappearance of evidence.
(ads1)
The court had also accepted that Modi's mental health had deteriorated due to his prolonged imprisonment in a London prison, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, that his suicide risk did not meet the high threshold so that it to conclude that it would be "unjust or oppressive" to extradite him.
Modi is the subject of two sets of criminal proceedings, the CBI case relating to fraudulent obtaining of large-scale fraudulent undertakings (LoUs) or loan agreements on PNB, and the ED case relating to laundering of proceeds. of that fraud.
He also faces two additional charges of "disappearance of evidence" and intimidation of witnesses or "criminal intimidation to cause death", which were added in the CBI case.
"I do not accept that the NDM [Nirav Deepak Modi] was involved in a lawful business and was using the LoU in a permissible manner," the magistrate's court judgment sent to the home secretary said.
India is a designated Part 2 country based on the Extradition Act 2003, which means that it is the Cabinet Minister who has the authority to order the extradition of the person requested after considering all the issues. The home secretary's order rarely goes against the court's findings, as he has to consider only very narrow bars for extradition, which is not applicable in Modi's case.
Posts
