Exclusive: Nirav Modi denied bail for tenth time - What UK court said

India Today

22-05-2025

The United Kingdom (UK) High Court on May 15 rejected the bail application of Nirav Modi for the tenth time after concluding that there is a risk that the fugitive diamond trader would abscond if released.Nirav Modi is the prime accused in the Rs 13,000 crore Punjab National Bank (PNB) fraud case. Modi, along with his uncle Mehul Choksi, is alleged to have defrauded the bank of Rs 6,498.20 crore and fled India in 2018.advertisementIndia Today has accessed the UK Court ordered refusing the grant of bail to Nirav Modi.
In the judgment order the Justice Kings Court of UK observed that Rs 600 million dollars, which in INR is nearly Rs 5150 crores, is yet not traced by Indian agencies which has been defrauded by Nirav Modi in the PNB scam.Nirav Modi was arrested in UK in 2019 and since then Indian authorities have been trying for his extradition to India. In 2021, then UK Home Secretary Priti Patel approved his extradition. Since then, Modi has repeatedly applied for bail, but his requests have been consistently denied. Indian agencies—the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)—have opposed each bail plea, submitting extensive evidence during court proceedings.NIRAV MODI SEEKS TO AVOID RETURN TO INDIA BY ANY MEANS AVAILABLEadvertisementThe order, passed by the Justice King's Bench Division, outlines several key reasons for the bail denial. One of the central observations is the strong motivation Modi has to avoid returning to India."The first topic which is of great significance relates to the strength of the incentive which, in my assessment, the Applicant has and would have – if released on bail – to seek to avoid any return to India, by any means available to him. Objectively, that incentive and its strength arise from these facts: that he is wanted to face trial in India, for matters of very great seriousness and substance relating to allegations of economic crime, in which he is said to have been principal perpetrator. That means, objectively, seriousness in terms of (i) substance (ii) role and (iii) sanction. Having said that, I have adopted some caution in relation to the reference made by Mr Hearn to life imprisonment. That, as I understand it, is a reference to a statutory maximum sentence. It does, however, give an indication so far as seriousness is concerned," the justice said.The judge acknowledged that while Modi has already spent over six years in custody—which could reduce his risk of fleeing—the nature and gravity of the charges outweigh that consideration.advertisement"I accept, as I have said, that the 6 years and 2 months would count as time served. I accept that, logically, a lengthier period of time already served must serve to reduce the individual's appetite for absconding and the risk of absconding. But the scale of that time served needs to be seen against the context of the gravity and seriousness of the charges. I am not going to go into any detailed description of the allegations at this stage. I have given the citation references for this Court's four earlier judgements, from which the relevant background can be derived," the justice said."I accept on the evidence that co-defendants facing trial have been released by the Indian authorities in India, on conditional bail. I accept on the evidence that one of those individuals had an alleged role said to be a leading role, at least of the roles of those within the Indian bank which was the subject of the alleged fraud. I also accept that the passage of time has reduced objectively the scope and risk of interference with witnesses (or with evidence). But I am not able to accept that there are now no substantial grounds so far as that risk is concerned. The Applicant is, on the face of it, imperilled by the prospect of extradition, which he would have a very strong incentive to avoid if possible. He would in my assessment be extremely motivated to seek to achieve that avoidance. He has failed in his legal resistance to extradition. He has failed in his High Court appeal. And one implication of the materials that have been put forward on his behalf, which are said to support risks of ill-treatment at the hands of the Indian authorities after any extradition, is that these would themselves reinforce the Applicant's incentive and resolve, if at all possible, to avoid extradition. I will need to return to what has been said about the case of Bhandari. I am quite satisfied that the correct starting point in this case is the very strong incentive which I have identified," he added.advertisementUSD 600 MILLION OF THE DEFRAUDED AMOUNT IS YET TO BE TRACEDThe order further in detail gives details about the defrauded sum which have been laundered around the world which have been tracked down by agencies, attached and confiscated. The court noted that out of USD 1,015.35 million allegedly transferred as part of the fraud, only USD 405.75 million has been located and either frozen or recovered. That leaves a gap of USD 600 million—equivalent to nearly Rs5,150 crore—which has not yet been traced.advertisement"The next point is the differential between (a) the sums which were transferred allegedly under the fraud in which the Applicant was key lead perpetrator and (b) the sums which have been located around the world and either frozen or recovered and confiscated. All of this has been assessed in previous judgements. The differential is between (a) the 1,015.35 million US dollars transferred and (b) the 405.75 million US dollars located. That leaves a differential of 600 million US dollars, yet to be found. These feature of the evidence are, in my assessment, an evidenced and objective basis for the strong objective reasons to which I have referred, to consider that the Applicant would be able to access very considerable financial resources," the order stated.FORMATION OF DIAMOND HOLDINGS, APPOINTING NIRAV MODI AS CEOAnother critical point raised was the formation of Diamond Holdings Ltd by Raj Thakorbhai Patel in the UK in 2018. The court pointed that despite knowing about the Indian criminal investigation, Patel appointed Modi as CEO, offering him a salary of EUR 20,000 per month.advertisement"At this point, I take one illustration which surfaces from the evidence before the Court on this application for bail. It is an illustration which itself resonates and raises questions about financial resources. It concerns the company that I have already mentioned: Diamond Holdings Ltd. The evidence before the Court is this. A semi-retired accountant called Raj Thakorbhai Patel says he met the Applicant in the UK in February 2018. He says he was aware of the Indian criminal investigation. He says he incorporated Diamond Holdings Ltd in May 2018. He says the company entered an employment relationship with the Applicant as its CEO, in which the Applicant was being paid Euro 20,000 a month. The sole director of the company was Patel. Patel was also the sole shareholder,' the justice noted.The company subsequently offered large sums of money as security during Modi's bail hearings— EUR 0.5 million in March 2019, EUR 1 million just nine days later, EUR 2 million by May 2019, and EUR 4 million by November of the same year. The court noted that these increasing offers, claimed to be made while keeping the company financially stable, raised questions about the real source and extent of Modi's accessible funds."The questions that start arising relate to the amounts of money that were subsequently being offered as pre-release security in the context of bail applications, by Patel on behalf of the company. On 20 March 2019, EUR 0.5 million was being put forward. Just 9 days later, EUR 1.0 million was being put forward. Pausing there, as Mr Hearn points out, that gearchange is itself of relevance when considering the idea put forward at this hearing, that it can be taken that all available means are being committed as security in support of bail. By May 2019, the company was offering EUR 2.0m. By November 2019, it was offering EUR 4m. (The Applicant had been detained from 19 March 2019.) All of those amounts are being said by Mr Patel as being capable of being put forward while leaving the company's position entirely and responsibly financially secure," the order stated.NIRAV MODI HAS CONSIDERABLE FINANCIAL RESOURCES : UK COURTThe judgement also mentions about the considerable financial resources of Nirav Modi."I would not want to underestimate the 'lucrative' nature of the diamond industry, of which Fitzgerald KC has reminded me. But I do need to be transparent in giving my reasons. That evidential picture about Diamond Holdings Ltd does raise questions. The Court does not have all of the answers, from the materials which have been filed. It may be that all of this is entirely benign. And I should record that my assessment of risk, ultimately, would be the same even absent this illustrative feature. It does, however, raise reinforcing concerns about the Applicant's access to very considerable financial resources," the justice said.EVIDENCE DESTROYED, SERVERS BURNT, DUMMY DIRECTORS MOVEDThe judgement also talks about the case against Modi and Indian criminal proceedings and how witnesses were influenced, evidence was destroyed.According to the findings, Modi was allegedly involved in actions aimed at obstructing justice. In March 2018, dummy directors linked to his operations were moved from Dubai to Cairo. Their mobile phones were reportedly confiscated and destroyed. Additionally, a computer server in Dubai was destroyed in February 2018, while Modi was already in the UK."Finally, I want to return to the question of the underlying allegations, to identify one part of the case against the Applicant in the Indian criminal proceedings. Part of what is alleged is that he was criminally responsible for actions in which witnesses were interfered with and evidence was destroyed. The evidence which was evaluated by Simler J included what is alleged to have occurred in March 2018. People who are said to have been dummy directors were moved from Dubai to Cairo. Their mobile phones are said to have been removed and destroyed. Also said to have been destroyed was evidence on a computer server in Dubai in February 2018. All of that would have taken place at the time when the Applicant was here in the UK," the order stated.The justice said that the UK courts have evaluated this evidence and twice concluded that there is a prima facie case against him."And I repeat, after careful evaluation, UK courts have twice concluded that there is an evidenced prima facie case, against the Applicant. Those courts were given a benign explanation, on the Applicant's behalf, of what happened to those individuals and their mobile phones in 2018. It is a story all about protection and cooperation. That point resurfaces within Fitzgerald KC's skeleton argument for today. Having considered that explanation, it was not accepted by the two courts, so far as a prima facie case on the evidence is concerned. The reason why – leaving aside the obvious relevance regarding interference with witnesses and evidence – all of this is significant, in my assessment, is this. It is part of the case, objectively supported by evidence, which has all of these features: (i) mobilisation; (ii) evasion; (iii) the use of associates; and (iv) actions crossing borders. It is illustrative, in my assessment, of the sorts of concerns to which the materials in this case give rise," he said.In conclusion, the UK High Court ruled that considering all the facts, including the seriousness of the charges, the risk of fleeing, access to untraced funds, and previous attempts to obstruct the investigation, Nirav Modi's bail application must be denied.Tune InMust Watch