Nirav is a key accused within the $2 billion
(PNB) fraud case. Nirav Modi nonetheless reserves the suitable to enchantment towards the mentioned order earlier than the next Court within the UK.
The UK Magistrate, in an in depth order, had indicted Nirav Modi on all costs levelled by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Enforcement Directorate (ED), that are probing the financial institution scandal.
From colluding with financial institution officers to defraud PNB and intimidating witnesses to laundering of cash and indulging in illegitimate enterprise, the UK Court had discovered drive within the proof produced by the Indian companies towards Nirav Modi.
Nirav Modi has been behind bars since March 2019. The extradition trial took two years to conclude. His bails have been rejected seven occasions by UK courts.
Nirav Modi nonetheless has two appeals left within the UK’s larger courts and a plea looking for political asylum, all of which must be determined towards him earlier than he will be deported to India.
Allowing the extradition plea of the Indian authorities, the UK court docket held: “I am satisfied that there is evidence upon which Nirav Deepak Modi could be convicted in relation to the conspiracy to defraud the PNB. A prima facie case is established.” The Westminster Court has additionally recorded that there was a prima facie case of cash laundering.
The court docket perused statements of officers of the Brady House department of PNB, affidavits of investigating officers, documentary proof and video and audio recordings of Nirav Modi’s brother with allegedly dummy administrators of his firms to conclude his judgement.
The choose had recorded that he had acquired 16 volumes of proof and knowledge from the Indian authorities and 16 bundles of knowledgeable studies and defence proof.
“Unlike the evidence from the defence, the evidence produced by the GOI in the case, through no fault of counsel, was poorly presented and very difficult to navigate,” the 83-page order learn.
Nirav Modi didn’t give proof on the extradition listening to.
The UK court docket was supplied with a video recording of various the allegedly dummy administrators (Ashish Lad, Rushabh Jethwa, Shreedhar Mayekar, Sonu Mehta and Nilesh Mistry) taken in Cairo. This was performed in court docket and a transcript offered. “In summary they each describe themselves as the namesake owners of the various companies. They describe the fact they were made to sign documents for their own safety and those documents state that the companies in Dubai belonged to them,” the order mentioned.
It added: “They say on the video that this is not true, because they were all working for Nirav Modi, they are under his control, they are living in fear and that is why they signed the documents, they signed the documents to get their passports back. Their passports were taken from them to get visas. They explain that they are making the video to let everyone know the pressure in which they’ve signed the documents because they had no other choice”.
The Indian companies had additionally provided transcripts of audio recordings between Nirav Modi’s brother Nehal and various the “dummy” administrators.
“The conversations show how Nehal Modi placed pressure on individuals to make untruthful statements, tell them what to say in statements. In a conversation between Nehal Modi and Ashish Lad, Nehal Modi is instructing Ashish Lad about how he should return to India via Calcutta to evade the authorities. He explains a lawyer will visit him and he will sign documents and make the same statements as Divyesh Ghandi. He also tells Ashish Lad he will need to go to Europe to make a statement in return for 20 lakhs,” the order noticed.
The choose had noticed: “I am satisfied that there is evidence upon which Nirav Modi could be convicted in relation to the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and the standalone conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by threatening to kill Ashish Lad. A prima facie case is established.”
The Court had added: “The CBI investigation demonstrates that NDM had retained control of the Nirav Modi firms but had sought to disguise the control of the firms through the use of dummy partners recruited at his behest in order to sustain the LOU (letter of understanding) scheme.”