UK court denies bail to Nirav Modi, prosecutor says he threatened witnesses, got evidence destroyed

UK prosecutor Toby Cadman said that there was a risk that the fugitive diamantaire might flee the UK, while opposing his bail plea in the Rs.13,000 crore Punjab National Bank fraud case.

Published: 29th March 2019 05:07 PM  |   Last Updated: 29th March 2019 08:39 PM   |  A+A-


Fugitive diamantaire Nirav Modi appeared before Westminster Magistrate Court in London on 29 March 2019 for his second bail application. (Photo | File)

By Online Desk

LONDON: Indian fugitive diamantaire Nirav Modi, the main accused in the Rs.13,000 crore Punjab National Bank scam, has been denied bail for a second time by London's Westminster Magistrate court on Friday. The next hearing in the case is fixed for 26 April.

Arguing on behalf of the Indian government, the UK prosecutor told Chief Magistrate Emma Arbuthnot that there was a "substantial risk" that the prime accused in the Punjab National Bank fraud to the "amount of between USD 1 and 2 billion", would flee and attempt to interfere with witnesses and evidence. He alleged that evidence related to the case was destroyed on behalf of Nirav Modi’s orders. 

"Given the nature and seriousness of charges and the resources available to him, there will be an overwhelming desire to flee the jurisdiction and interfere with the administration of justice," said Cadman, representative of Crown Prosecution Service.

The UK prosecutor also alleged that Modi had called up Ashish Lad, a witness in the PNB fraud case and threatened to kill him, and also offered him an incentive of Rs 2 million to provide a false statement.

Nilesh Mistry and three other witnesses were similarly targeted by Modi and mobile phones and a server holding "material critical to the fraud" were destroyed at request of Modi, the court was told.

"Due to the nature of his business he has at his disposal diamonds, gold and pearls," added Cadman.

Looking more dishevelled and dressed in a similar white shirt as his first court appearance last week, the 48-year-old fugitive was brought to the dock to be produced before the Chief Magistrate and sat behind a glass enclosure as the hearing got underway.

The court was also told about Modi's attempt to attain citizenship in jurisdictions less likely to be willing to extradite him to India, including Vanuatu in the South Pacific Ocean at the end of 2017 on the basis of a USD 200,000 investment.

However, Vanuatu citizenship request was declined as a result of the ongoing Indian criminal investigation.

Modi's defence team, led by barrister Clare Motgomery - who was also the barrister for former Kingfisher Airlines boss Vijay Mallya in his extradition case - opposed the CPS claims of Modi being a flight risk and stressed that in fact Modi sees UK as a "haven where his case will be fairly considered".

"The size and nature of these allegations is not a safe touchstone by which you can judge if he should be granted bail," said Montgomery, who claimed a series of "underlying issues" were behind PNB withdrawing insecure lending.

At the very start of the hearing, Judge Arbuthnot said she was getting a sense of "deja vu", in reference to her having ordered the extradition of Mallya in December last year.

"Do we know which part of India he [Modi] is being sought in," the judge asked, to try and establish which jail Modi is likely to be held in.

She was told by the CPS that it would be an extradition to Mumbai and that he may in fact be held in the same Arthur Road Jail as that prepared for Mallya, to which the judge said in a light-hearted vein that it could even be the same cell as we know "there is space" from the previous video submitted during Mallya extradition trial.

In another throwback to the Mallya trial, Montgomery raised the issue of the state of the paperwork submitted by the Indian authorities, claiming it "made her cry" at one stage.

The judge concurred with her and was very firm about proper indexing of all documents to be submitted to the court in relation to the case.

Cadman assured the court that the 'point had been conveyed' to the Indian authorities.

A three-member joint Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) team from India was present in court and handed over a new file of evidence which was review by the judge before the hearing.

Modi is believed to have been living in the UK on an Investor Visa, applied for in 2015 - at a time when the so-called 'golden visa' route was relatively easier for super-rich individuals to acquire residency rights in the UK based on a minimum of 2-million pound investment.

The greater the level of investment, the faster the process to acquire indefinite leave to remain (ILR).

According to official Home Office data, around 76 Indian millionaires have used this visa category to gain permanent settlement in Britain since 2009, with a peak of 16 Indian applicants in 2013 and seven last year.

The UK government has since tightened the criteria for the category over concerns of its misuse for money laundering purposes.

Under reforms unveiled earlier this year, applicants must now prove that they have had control of the required investment for at least two years, rather than 90 days, or provide evidence of the source of those funds.

Modi had been denied bail by District Judge Marie Mallon at his first hearing soon after his arrest by Scotland Yard officers from a central London bank branch as he tried to open a new bank account and has been in custody at HMP Wandsworth prison in south-west London since then.

During his first court appearance, it emerged that the diamantaire accused of defrauding PNB via fraudulent Letters of Undertaking (LoUs) had been in possession of multiple passports, since revoked by the Indian authorities.

(With PTI inputs)


Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp