November 3, 2020 9:24:26 pm
A UK decide presiding over the extradition proceedings of Nirav Modi on Tuesday dominated that the proof submitted by the Indian authorities to ascertain a prima facie case of fraud and cash laundering in opposition to the fugitive diamantaire is broadly admissible.
District Decide Samuel Goozee heard the arguments for and in opposition to the admissibility of sure witness statements offered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) at Westminster Magistrates’ Courtroom right here and concluded that he thought-about himself “certain” by the earlier UK courtroom rulings within the extradition case of former Kingfisher Airways chief Vijay Mallya.
He then adjourned the case for a two-day listening to on January 7 and eight subsequent 12 months, when he’ll hear the ultimate submissions within the case earlier than he palms down his judgment a number of weeks later.
“I take into account myself certain by that call (Mallya). There isn’t a motive why factors made by witnesses can’t be used as knowledgeable commentary,” mentioned Decide Goozee.
Modi is needed in India to face trial within the estimated USD 2-billion Punjab Nationwide Financial institution (PNB) rip-off case.
The 49-year-old diamond service provider adopted the proceedings through videolink from Wandsworth Jail in south-west London, wearing a prison-issued gray tracksuit and sporting a thick beard.
He’ll subsequent seem from jail, by videolink, for an everyday temporary 28-day remand call-over listening to on December 1.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), arguing on behalf of the Indian authorities, confused that the proof, together with witness statements underneath Part 161 of the Indian Code of Felony Process (CrPC), meets the required threshold for the UK courtroom to find out whether or not Modi has a case to reply earlier than the Indian judicial system.
“The argument that it is a very particular case, distinguishable from Mallya is frankly nonsense,” mentioned CPS barrister Helen Malcolm.
That Mallya has a case to reply in India in his fraud and cash laundering case has cleared varied ranges of the UK judicial system and is at the moment present process a “confidential” authorized difficulty earlier than UK Dwelling Secretary Priti Patel can take into account signing off on his extradition.
Modi’s barrister, Clare Montgomery, who was additionally the defence counsel in Mallya’s case, nonetheless, disputed that the Part 161 witness statements qualify as related.
“The federal government of India case is just not as robust because it was in Mallya,” mentioned Montgomery, as she raised a selected difficulty over a witness who was mentioned to talk no English in his testimony for the CBI however signed an announcement in English for the ED.
After Tuesday’s ruling, the decide will determine how a lot weight he locations on these paperwork amid the “37 bundles of proof” to be thought-about for his ruling within the case � anticipated early subsequent 12 months.
Modi is the topic of two units of felony proceedings, with the CBI case regarding a large-scale fraud upon PNB by means of the fraudulent acquiring of “Letters of Understanding” (LOUs or mortgage agreements), and the ED case regarding the laundering of the proceeds of that fraud.
He additionally faces two further prices of “inflicting the disappearance of proof” and intimidating witnesses or “felony intimidation to trigger demise” added to the CBI case.
The jeweller has been in jail since he was arrested on March 19, 2019, on an extradition warrant executed by Scotland Yard and his makes an attempt at in search of bail have been repeatedly turned down.
📣 The Press Reporter is also on Facebook. Follow us on Facebook and stay updated with the latest headlines.
For all the latest News, download Press Reporter App from Playstore.