[ad_1]
A UK judge presiding over the extradition proceedings of Nirav Modi on Tuesday dominated that the evidence submitted by the Indian authorities to determine a prima facie case of fraud and cash laundering in opposition to the fugitive diamantaire is broadly admissible.
District Judge Samuel Goozee heard the arguments for and in opposition to the admissibility of sure witness statements supplied by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) at Westminster Magistrates’ Court right here and concluded that he thought-about himself “bound” by the earlier UK courtroom rulings within the extradition case of former Kingfisher Airlines 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 arms down his judgment a number of weeks later.
“I consider myself bound by that decision (Mallya). There is no reason why points made by witnesses cannot be used as informed commentary,” stated Judge Goozee.
Modi is needed in India to face trial within the estimated USD 2-billion Punjab National Bank (PNB) rip-off case.
The 49-year-old diamond service provider adopted the proceedings by way of videolink from Wandsworth Prison in south-west London, wearing a prison-issued gray tracksuit and sporting a thick beard.
He will 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 evidence, together with witness statements underneath Section 161 of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure (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 this is a very specific case, distinguishable from Mallya is frankly nonsense,” stated CPS barrister Helen Malcolm.
That Mallya has a case to reply in India in his fraud and cash laundering case has cleared numerous ranges of the UK judicial system and is at the moment present process a “confidential” authorized situation earlier than UK Home Secretary Priti Patel can contemplate signing off on his extradition.
Modi’s barrister, Clare Montgomery, who was additionally the defence counsel in Mallya’s case, nonetheless, disputed that the Section 161 witness statements qualify as related.
“The government of India case is not as strong as it was in Mallya,” stated Montgomery, as she raised a selected situation over a witness who was stated to talk no English in his testimony for the CBI however signed an announcement in English for the ED.
After Tuesday’s ruling, the judge will resolve how a lot weight he locations on these paperwork amid the “37 bundles of evidence” to be thought-about for his ruling within the case � anticipated early subsequent 12 months.
Modi is the topic of two units of legal proceedings, with the CBI case referring to a large-scale fraud upon PNB by the fraudulent acquiring of “Letters of Understanding” (LOUs or mortgage agreements), and the ED case referring to the laundering of the proceeds of that fraud.
He additionally faces two extra fees of “causing the disappearance of evidence” and intimidating witnesses or “criminal intimidation to cause death” 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 looking for bail have been repeatedly turned down.
[ad_2]
Source