London: Nirav Modi, wanted in connection with the estimated $2-billion Punjab Nationwide Financial institution (PNB) rip-off case, turned into extra remanded in custody on Tuesday by a court docket in London hearing India’s extradition ask for the diamond merchant
The 49-year-venerable appeared on Tuesday by the utilization of video-hyperlink from Wandsworth Penal complex in south-west London, sporting a maroon sweater and sporting a tubby beard, for his traditional 28-day name-over hearing at Westminster Magistrates’ Court docket, where Chief Magistrate Emma Arbuthnot prolonged his remand for one other 28 days till 29 December.
It’ll be one other short video-hyperlink name-over hearing after which there is good over per week earlier than closing submissions within the case, she commended Modi, who spoke simplest to verify his name and date of birth.
The closing hearings within the extradition case are scheduled over two days, on 7 and eight January next year, when District Scheme discontinuance Samuel Goozee is scheduled to listen to closing arguments from all sides earlier than he fingers down his judgment just a few weeks later.
On the final hearing within the case on 3 November, Scheme discontinuance Goozee heard the arguments for and in opposition to the admissibility of particular accept as true with statements provided by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) and dominated that the proof to put a prima facie case of fraud and money laundering in opposition to the fugitive diamantaire is broadly admissible.
He concluded that he belief of himself certain by the previous UK court docket rulings within the extradition case of historic Kingfisher Airlines chief Vijay Mallya.
The Crown Prosecution Carrier (CPS), arguing on behalf of the Indian authorities, had stressed out that the proof, including accept as true with statements below Portion 161 of the Indian Code of Criminal Course of (CrPC), meets the desired threshold for the UK court docket to uncover whether Modi has a case to reply to earlier than the Indian judicial device.
The argument that here is a extraordinarily explicit case, distinguishable from Mallya is frankly nonsense, said CPS barrister Helen Malcolm.
That Mallya has a case to reply to in India in his fraud and money laundering case, has cleared diverse phases of the UK judicial device and is currently present process a confidential just tell earlier than UK Home Secretary Priti Patel can absorb in tips signing off on his extradition.
Modi’s barrister, Clare Montgomery, who turned into moreover the defence counsel in Mallya’s case, nonetheless, disputed that the Portion 161 accept as true with statements qualify as connected.
“The Authorities of India case is now now not as solid as it turned into in Mallya’s,” said Montgomery, as she moreover raised a particular tell over a accept as true with who turned into said to talk no English in his testimony for the CBI but signed an announcement in English for the ED.
Modi is the topic of two items of prison court docket cases, with the CBI case concerning a gracious-scale fraud upon PNB by the faux acquiring of “Letters of Knowing” (LOUs or loan agreements), and the ED case concerning the laundering of the proceeds of that fraud.
He moreover faces two additional costs of “causing the disappearance of proof” and intimidating witnesses or prison intimidation to plot demise added to the CBI case.
The jeweller has been in jail since he turned into arrested on 19 March, 2019, on an extradition warrant carried out by Scotland Yard and his makes an attempt at looking out for bail had been continuously turned into down. The costs in opposition to him centre spherical his companies Diamonds R Us, Solar Exports and Stellar Diamonds making faux use of LoU, a credit facility offered by PNB.
The CPS, on behalf of India, have commended the court docket at some level of the midst of two separate space of hearings in Would possibly perchance per chance per chance and September that a various of PNB workers conspired with Modi to manufacture particular that the LoUs had been issued to his companies without guaranteeing they had been field to the desired credit take a look at, without recording the issuance of the LoUs and without charging the desired commission upon the transactions.
Modi’s defence team has sought to counter allegations of fraud by deposing witnesses to put the volatility of the gemstones and jewellery alternate and that the LoUs had been customary observe. His severe despair has moreover been raised as part of the arguments in opposition to extradition.