The 48-year-old diamond merchant, Nirav Modi was on Thursday (December 5) declared a fugitive economic offender under Fugitive Economic Offenders Act by a special Prevention of Money Laundering Act ( PMLA) court
Mumbai: Nirav Modi has been declared a fugitive economic offender under Fugitive Economic Offenders Act by a special Prevention of Money Laundering Act ( PMLA) court in Mumbai on Thursday (December 5) in the Punjab National Bank (PNB) scam case. Order on confiscation of his properties will happen later.
Earlier, a United Kingdom (UK) court rejected the bail plea of the fugitive diamond merchant Modi despite an offer of an “unprecedented bail package”, which included 4 million pounds in security as well as house arrest akin to those imposed on terror suspects.
The 48-year-old diamond merchant, who is fighting extradition to India on charges of nearly 2 billion dollars Punjab National Bank (PNB) fraud and money laundering case, was produced before Chief Magistrate Emma Arbuthnot at Westminster Magistrates' court for his fourth attempt at bail.
Modi has been lodged at Wandsworth prison in south-west London, one of England's most overcrowded jails, since his arrest in March on an extradition warrant executed by Scotland Yard on charges brought by the Indian government, being represented by the UK's Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in court.
Since his arrest, his legal team, led by solicitor Anand Doobay and barrister Clare Montgomery, has made four bail applications, which have been rejected each time due to Modi being deemed a flight risk.
In her judgment handed down at the Royal Courts of Justice in London on his last bail appeal in June, Justice Ingrid Simler had concluded there were substantial grounds to believe that Modi would fail to surrender as he does possess the means to abscond.
Reiterating similar concerns as those previously raised by Westminster Magistrates' court during earlier bail attempts, Judge Simler ruled that after considering all the material carefully, she had found strong evidence to suggest there had been interference with witnesses and destruction of evidence in the case and concluded it can still occur.
Last Updated 1:24 PM IST