In Mumbai, the diamantaire Mehul Choksi, a principal accused in the multi-crore PNB scandal, has communicated to a special court in the city that his inability to return to India is due to circumstances beyond his control, thereby contesting his classification as a fugitive economic offender. Choksi contends that his departure from India was not an attempt to evade criminal prosecution, nor is he declining to come back to his homeland. He asserts that his passport has been rendered inactive by Indian authorities.
These statements were made in an application submitted on Wednesday to a special PMLA court, wherein Choksi seeks the production of documents related to the suspension of his passport and the investigative records of the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) case against him. The ongoing legal proceedings against Choksi revolve around the ED’s request to designate him as a fugitive economic offender (FEO), and the requested documents are deemed essential for a fair adjudication of the matter, as argued in the plea presented by advocate Vijay Agarwal.
According to the Fugitive Economic Offender Act of 2018, as mentioned in the plea, an individual can be declared a fugitive economic offender if a court in India issues an arrest warrant for a scheduled offense, and said individual absconds from the country to evade criminal prosecution or refuses to return to face charges. The plea contends that neither of these conditions applies to Choksi, as indicated by the ED’s submission.
The plea asserts that Choksi’s circumstance is distinct, as he has not fled the country to evade prosecution nor is he unwilling to return, but rather finds himself unable to return due to external factors beyond his control. Choksi maintains that in February 2018, in response to summonses from the investigative agency, he informed the ED of his inability to return to India owing to the suspension of his passport by Indian authorities.
Included in his plea is a notice from the passport office citing a threat to national security as the grounds for suspending his passport. Given these circumstances, the plea argues that the ED’s assertion that Choksi is deliberately avoiding return to India is flawed, considering he cannot be expected to return when his passport is inactive.
Consequently, the plea contends that for a fair adjudication of the matter regarding his classification as an FEO, it is imperative to present the reasons and documentation pertaining to the suspension of Choksi’s passport. Similarly, it requests the summoning of investigative files to determine whether the ED possesses evidence indicating Choksi’s awareness of the alleged bank fraud, prompting his departure from the country.
This request holds significance, as Choksi maintains that his departure from India was for medical purposes, occurring well before the initiation of any FIR or ED investigation, as emphasized in the application. Therefore, summoning the investigation file is deemed necessary for a fair adjudication of the matter, the plea concludes.
The court, presiding over cases falling under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), has sought a response from the ED regarding Choksi’s plea and has postponed the hearing until June 3. Choksi and his nephew Nirav Modi are both sought by the ED and the CBI for their alleged involvement in defrauding the Punjab National Bank (PNB) of Rs 13,400 crore, colluding with certain bank employees.
The ED had approached the special PMLA court, seeking the declaration of Choksi as a fugitive economic offender for evading summons from the agency and for the confiscation of his assets under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act of 2018.
