Nirav Modi extradition case: UK judge admits CBI, ED evidence

A UK judge presiding over extrition proceedings of Nirav Modi on Tuesday ruled that evidence submitted by Indian authorities to establish a prima facie case of fraud and money laundering against fugitive diamantaire is broly missible.

District Judge Samuel Goozee heard arguments for and against missibility of certain witness statements provided by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) at Westminster Magistrates’ Court here and concluded that he considered himself "bound" by previous UK court rulings in extrition case of former Kingfisher Airlines chief Vijay Mallya.

He n journed case for a two-day hearing on January 7 and 8 next year, when he will hear final submissions in case before he hands down his judgment a few weeks later.

"I consider myself bound by that decision (Mallya). re is reason why points me by witnesses cant be used as informed commentary," said Judge Goozee. Modi is wanted in India to face trial in estimated USD 2-billion Punjab National Bank (PNB) scam case.

49-year-old diamond merchant followed proceedings via videolink from Wandsworth Prison in south-west London, dressed in a prison-issued grey tracksuit and sporting a thick beard. He will next appear from prison, by videolink, for a regular brief 28-day remand call-over hearing on December 1.

Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), arguing on behalf of Indian authorities, stressed that evidence, including witness statements under Section 161 of Indian Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), meets required threshold for UK court to determine wher Modi has a case to answer before Indian judicial system.

" argument that this is a very specific case, distinguishable from Mallya is frankly nsense," said CPS barrister Helen Malcolm.

That Mallya has a case to answer in India in his fraud and money laundering case has cleared various levels of UK judicial system and is currently undergoing a "confidential" legal issue before UK Home Secretary Priti Patel can consider signing off on his extrition.

Modi’s barrister, Clare Montgomery, who was also defence counsel in Mallya’s case, however, disputed that Section 161 witness statements qualify as similar.

" government of India case is t as strong as it was in Mallya," said Montgomery, as she raised a specific issue over a witness who was said to speak English in his testimony for CBI but signed a statement in English for ED.

After Tuesday’s ruling, judge will decide how much weight he places on se documents amid "37 bundles of evidence" to be considered for his ruling in case – expected early next year.

Modi is subject of two sets of criminal proceedings, with CBI case relating to a large-scale fraud upon PNB through fraudulent obtaining of "Letters of Understanding" (LOUs or loan agreements), and ED case relating to laundering of proceeds of that fraud.

He also faces two ditional charges of "causing disappearance of evidence" and intimidating witnesses or “criminal intimidation to cause death” ded to CBI case.

jeweller has been in prison since he was arrested on March 19, 2019, on an extrition warrant executed by Scotland Yard and his attempts at seeking bail have been repeatedly turned down. charges against him centre around his firms Diamonds R Us, Solar Exports and Stellar Diamonds making fraudulent use of a credit facility offered by PNB or LoUs.

CPS, on behalf of India, have told court during course of two separate set of hearings in May and September that a number of PNB staff conspired with Modi to ensure LoUs were issued to his companies without ensuring y were subject to required credit check, without recording issuance of LoUs and without charging required commission upon transactions.

Modi’s defence team has sought to counter allegations of fraud by deposing witnesses to establish volatility of gems and jewellery tre and that LoUs were standard practice. His severe depression has also been raised as part of arguments against extrition.

(Photo Credit: PTI)