Latest news with #Antiguan
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Vivo Capital Issues Letter to Sinovac Biotech Shareholders Addressing the Company's False and Misleading Claims
Affirms Support for Fair and Equitable Dividend Distribution for All Shareholders by Sinovac Corrects the Company's Misrepresentations of Vivo's Capital Contributions, Which Have Been Critical to Sinovac's Commercial Success and Ability to Return Capital to Shareholders Calls on All Shareholders to Stand up for Transparent Corporate Governance and Elect Qualified Directors to the Board at Upcoming Special Meeting on July 8 PALO ALTO, Calif., June 11, 2025--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Vivo Capital ("Vivo" or "we"), a leading global investment firm focused exclusively on healthcare and life sciences and an approximately 8% shareholder in Sinovac Biotech Ltd. (NASDAQ:SVA) ("Sinovac" or the "Company"), today sent a letter to shareholders. *** Dear Fellow Sinovac Shareholders, We, Vivo Capital ("Vivo"), write to you as fellow shareholders of Sinovac Biotech Ltd. ("Sinovac" or the "Company") to address a number of statements in the April 29, 2025 letter from Sinovac's Board of Directors (the "Board") that we believe are false, and to reaffirm our commitment to upholding the best interests of all shareholders and to transparent corporate governance. The Board has deceptively portrayed recent events as centering around a dispute with Vivo only. But the problem is at Sinovac's Board, not at Vivo. In fact, Sinovac's Board has precipitated a corporate governance crisis that threatens the Company's future growth and has eroded its credibility with all shareholders. After the Privy Council ruled in January that five (5) directors had been elected in February 2018 consistent with Antiguan law, a new Board was installed—but contrary to the claims of the Board, its composition did not match the slate the Privy Council had considered. With no transparency, multiple directors have purportedly resigned and been replaced within three months, casting substantial uncertainty over the Company's corporate governance and stability. Further, the Company's independent auditor, Grant Thornton Zhitong Certified Public Accountants LLP, resigned in response to the Board's April 1, 2025 statement that attempted to cast doubt on the validity of the Company's corporate actions over the past seven years.1 This resignation, in turn, prompted Sinovac's own management to publicly express concerns that the current Board's actions have disrupted Sinovac's compliant operations and governance.2 Further, dissatisfaction with the current Board does not just come from Vivo. Another major shareholder, SAIF Partners, formally requisitioned a special meeting of shareholders, which will be held on July 8, to elect new directors to the Board.3 In its April 29 letter, the Board continued its attempts to rewrite the Company's history. As shareholders, you will have an important decision regarding the future of your investment—so we want to ensure you have the accurate information regarding these matters: 1. Vivo supports the distribution of dividends. The Board's suggestion that Vivo aims to prevent shareholders from receiving dividends is false. As an investment firm, we fully expect the Company to distribute excess cash to all shareholders, including ourselves, as we are committed to fulfilling our fiduciary duties to our limited partners by seeking timely investment returns. However, the Board must ensure that any dividend payments are made lawfully and equitably, to the benefit of all shareholders, rather than by excluding long-time shareholders like Vivo for the personal benefit of individual Board members. 2. Vivo has never controlled the Company's Board. Since our PIPE investment in July 2018, Vivo has held approximately 8% of the Company's shares and has had only one representative on its six-seat Board. Contrary to the current Board's statement, Vivo has never sought nor possessed control of the Board or the Company. 1Globe and OrbiMed, on the other hand, who have now sued Vivo and another investor in Antigua, fully control the current Board with three purported seats held by directors of their choosing, two of whom were not on the slate proposed at the Annual General Meeting in February 2018 (the "AGM"), despite holding only a minority interest. 3. 1Globe's war against the Company directly led to NASDAQ trading halt. The Board has claimed that Vivo controlled the former Board and caused the NASDAQ trading halt. This is also false. The former Board was in place before Vivo's initial investment in the Company, which occurred six months after 1Globe ambushed the AGM. 1Globe subsequently launched a prolonged legal battle against the Company. As a result of the 1Globe litigation, the trading of Sinovac's stock was halted in February 2019. The recent resignation of the independent auditor has resulted in Sinovac's inability to timely file its annual report with the SEC,4 which in turn led to a notification of non-compliance from the NASDAQ.5 The Company is required to submit a plan to regain compliance by July 15, 2025 and may risk being delisted if the plan is not accepted by the NASDAQ. 4. Vivo made its PIPE investment in good faith, responding to the Company's financial needs. Vivo invested in Sinovac in July 2018, when the Company needed capital to launch two vaccine projects and to further develop its production facility in Beijing. At that time, the Company lacked surplus cash reserves and was unable to secure additional bank financing due to 1Globe's litigation against the Company. It was under these circumstances that we invested in the Company through the PIPE—an arm's length investment made in good faith. 5. Vivo's capital contributions were critical to successful development and commercialization of COVID-19 vaccine. At the beginning of 2020, Sinovac's Beijing operating entity Sinovac Life Sciences Co., Ltd. ("SLS") was in a dire situation, as the capital required for the development and production of CoronaVac far exceeded its available funds. Vivo aided in at least three ways: First, the cash injection from the PIPE investment enabled Sinovac to provide approximately $24 million in total to SLS for CoronaVac's development. Second, when 1Globe's protracted lawsuit led to the NASDAQ trading halt and prevented Sinovac from securing additional financing, Vivo and its co-investor each provided $7.5 million to SLS through a convertible bond structure in May 2020, ensuring the successful completion of CoronaVac's clinical trials. Vivo made this investment notwithstanding the significant uncertainties around CoronaVac's viability and profitability as it had not even completed its Phase I clinical trial at that time. Third, Vivo introduced additional investors to SLS, who subsequently provided $527 million of much-needed additional capital for ramping up CoronaVac's production at the end of 2020. SLS enjoyed a higher valuation in this round, because by then China had approved CoronaVac's emergency use, Phase III clinical trials were underway globally, a key production facility had begun operations, and the Company had received vaccine purchase orders from customers. Vivo's contributions were vital to the success of CoronaVac and have benefitted all shareholders. By contrast, 1Globe purchased all of its Sinovac shares from the open market without contributing a single dollar, or otherwise providing any support, to the Company. 6. There is no "double-dip" attempt by Vivo in receiving dividends. The Board misleadingly asserted that Vivo intends to "double‑dip" on dividends. As explained above, Vivo made two separate investments in the Company, including the PIPE investment in the holding company and the convertible bond investment in SLS, both of which were essential in supporting the success of the CoronaVac. These were arm's length transactions based on public trading price and/or independent third-party fairness opinions. Although SLS has issued dividends (including dividends to Sinovac, the public parent company, proportionate to its ownership), Vivo, like our fellow shareholders, has never received any dividend for its shareholding in the holding company. The Board's recent actions, including its threat to invalidate the PIPE transaction notwithstanding 1Globe's inability to obtain such relief in seven years of litigation in Antigua, left Vivo with no choice but to initiate legal proceedings. Vivo is litigating not just to protect its own interests, but the interests of all shareholders. We are gravely concerned about the Board's improper actions which have directly undermined the Company's governance and precipitated the current crisis, as evidenced by the resignation of the Company's independent auditor, the Company's delayed filing of its annual report with the SEC, and its receipt of notification of non-compliance from the NASDAQ. Our position is clear: all shareholders deserve to be treated fairly and equitably. Importantly, the Board's current actions risk harming all shareholders, as the Board's attempt to disenfranchise long-term shareholders like Vivo sets an alarming precedent of how it values and rewards key investors and how it views the legal and contractual obligations of the Company. Indeed, the Board is now attempting to illegally exclude Vivo and another long-term shareholder from the July 8 shareholders meeting. These actions would, among other things, make it harder for Sinovac to attract investors in the future, hurting the Company and all of its shareholders. We urge all of our fellow shareholders to join us in helping to restore trust in the Company's governance. We appreciate your continued support as we work to ensure the Company's future is built on integrity, transparency, and respect for all stakeholders. Sincerely, Vivo Capital LLC About Vivo Capital Founded in 1996, Vivo Capital is a leading global healthcare investment firm with a diverse, multi-fund investment platform spanning venture capital, growth equity, buyout, and public equities. The Firm has approximately $5.3 billion in regulatory assets under management and has invested in over 430 public and private companies globally. Headquartered in Palo Alto, California, the Vivo team consists of more than 75 multi-disciplinary professionals. Vivo invests broadly in healthcare across multiple sub-sectors, including biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and healthcare services, with a focus on the largest healthcare markets globally. 1 Sinovac's Form 6-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") dated April 21, 2025, available at 2 Press Release, Sinovac Management Statement Regarding Auditor Resignation, available at: 3 SAIF Partners IV L.P.'s Schedule 13D filed with the SEC, available at: 4 Sinovac's Form 12b-25 (Notification of Late Filings) filed with the SEC dated April 29, 2025, available at 5 Sinovac's Form 6-K filed with the SEC dated May 23, 2025, available at View source version on Contacts MediaPro-vivo@ Errore nel recupero dei dati Effettua l'accesso per consultare il tuo portafoglio Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati
Business Wire
2 days ago
- Business
- Business Wire
Vivo Capital Issues Letter to Sinovac Biotech Shareholders Addressing the Company's False and Misleading Claims
PALO ALTO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Vivo Capital ('Vivo' or 'we'), a leading global investment firm focused exclusively on healthcare and life sciences and an approximately 8% shareholder in Sinovac Biotech Ltd. (NASDAQ:SVA) ('Sinovac' or the 'Company'), today sent a letter to shareholders. *** Dear Fellow Sinovac Shareholders, We, Vivo Capital ('Vivo'), write to you as fellow shareholders of Sinovac Biotech Ltd. ('Sinovac' or the 'Company') to address a number of statements in the April 29, 2025 letter from Sinovac's Board of Directors (the 'Board') that we believe are false, and to reaffirm our commitment to upholding the best interests of all shareholders and to transparent corporate governance. The Board has deceptively portrayed recent events as centering around a dispute with Vivo only. But the problem is at Sinovac's Board, not at Vivo. In fact, Sinovac's Board has precipitated a corporate governance crisis that threatens the Company's future growth and has eroded its credibility with all shareholders. After the Privy Council ruled in January that five (5) directors had been elected in February 2018 consistent with Antiguan law, a new Board was installed—but contrary to the claims of the Board, its composition did not match the slate the Privy Council had considered. With no transparency, multiple directors have purportedly resigned and been replaced within three months, casting substantial uncertainty over the Company's corporate governance and stability. Further, the Company's independent auditor, Grant Thornton Zhitong Certified Public Accountants LLP, resigned in response to the Board's April 1, 2025 statement that attempted to cast doubt on the validity of the Company's corporate actions over the past seven years.1 This resignation, in turn, prompted Sinovac's own management to publicly express concerns that the current Board's actions have disrupted Sinovac's compliant operations and governance.2 Further, dissatisfaction with the current Board does not just come from Vivo. Another major shareholder, SAIF Partners, formally requisitioned a special meeting of shareholders, which will be held on July 8, to elect new directors to the Board.3 In its April 29 letter, the Board continued its attempts to rewrite the Company's history. As shareholders, you will have an important decision regarding the future of your investment—so we want to ensure you have the accurate information regarding these matters: 1. Vivo supports the distribution of dividends. The Board's suggestion that Vivo aims to prevent shareholders from receiving dividends is false. As an investment firm, we fully expect the Company to distribute excess cash to all shareholders, including ourselves, as we are committed to fulfilling our fiduciary duties to our limited partners by seeking timely investment returns. However, the Board must ensure that any dividend payments are made lawfully and equitably, to the benefit of all shareholders, rather than by excluding long-time shareholders like Vivo for the personal benefit of individual Board members. 2. Vivo has never controlled the Company's Board. Since our PIPE investment in July 2018, Vivo has held approximately 8% of the Company's shares and has had only one representative on its six-seat Board. Contrary to the current Board's statement, Vivo has never sought nor possessed control of the Board or the Company. 1Globe and OrbiMed, on the other hand, who have now sued Vivo and another investor in Antigua, fully control the current Board with three purported seats held by directors of their choosing, two of whom were not on the slate proposed at the Annual General Meeting in February 2018 (the 'AGM'), despite holding only a minority interest. 3. 1Globe's war against the Company directly led to NASDAQ trading halt. The Board has claimed that Vivo controlled the former Board and caused the NASDAQ trading halt. This is also false. The former Board was in place before Vivo's initial investment in the Company, which occurred six months after 1Globe ambushed the AGM. 1Globe subsequently launched a prolonged legal battle against the Company. As a result of the 1Globe litigation, the trading of Sinovac's stock was halted in February 2019. The recent resignation of the independent auditor has resulted in Sinovac's inability to timely file its annual report with the SEC,4 which in turn led to a notification of non-compliance from the NASDAQ.5 The Company is required to submit a plan to regain compliance by July 15, 2025 and may risk being delisted if the plan is not accepted by the NASDAQ. 4. Vivo made its PIPE investment in good faith, responding to the Company's financial needs. Vivo invested in Sinovac in July 2018, when the Company needed capital to launch two vaccine projects and to further develop its production facility in Beijing. At that time, the Company lacked surplus cash reserves and was unable to secure additional bank financing due to 1Globe's litigation against the Company. It was under these circumstances that we invested in the Company through the PIPE—an arm's length investment made in good faith. 5. Vivo's capital contributions were critical to successful development and commercialization of COVID-19 vaccine. At the beginning of 2020, Sinovac's Beijing operating entity Sinovac Life Sciences Co., Ltd. ('SLS') was in a dire situation, as the capital required for the development and production of CoronaVac far exceeded its available funds. Vivo aided in at least three ways: First, the cash injection from the PIPE investment enabled Sinovac to provide approximately $24 million in total to SLS for CoronaVac's development. the cash injection from the PIPE investment enabled Sinovac to provide approximately $24 million in total to SLS for CoronaVac's development. Second, when 1Globe's protracted lawsuit led to the NASDAQ trading halt and prevented Sinovac from securing additional financing, Vivo and its co-investor each provided $7.5 million to SLS through a convertible bond structure in May 2020, ensuring the successful completion of CoronaVac's clinical trials. Vivo made this investment notwithstanding the significant uncertainties around CoronaVac's viability and profitability as it had not even completed its Phase I clinical trial at that time. when 1Globe's protracted lawsuit led to the NASDAQ trading halt and prevented Sinovac from securing additional financing, Vivo and its co-investor each provided $7.5 million to SLS through a convertible bond structure in May 2020, ensuring the successful completion of CoronaVac's clinical trials. Vivo made this investment notwithstanding the significant uncertainties around CoronaVac's viability and profitability as it had not even completed its Phase I clinical trial at that time. Third, Vivo introduced additional investors to SLS, who subsequently provided $527 million of much-needed additional capital for ramping up CoronaVac's production at the end of 2020. SLS enjoyed a higher valuation in this round, because by then China had approved CoronaVac's emergency use, Phase III clinical trials were underway globally, a key production facility had begun operations, and the Company had received vaccine purchase orders from customers. Vivo's contributions were vital to the success of CoronaVac and have benefitted all shareholders. By contrast, 1Globe purchased all of its Sinovac shares from the open market without contributing a single dollar, or otherwise providing any support, to the Company. 6. There is no 'double-dip' attempt by Vivo in receiving dividends. The Board misleadingly asserted that Vivo intends to 'double‑dip' on dividends. As explained above, Vivo made two separate investments in the Company, including the PIPE investment in the holding company and the convertible bond investment in SLS, both of which were essential in supporting the success of the CoronaVac. These were arm's length transactions based on public trading price and/or independent third-party fairness opinions. Although SLS has issued dividends (including dividends to Sinovac, the public parent company, proportionate to its ownership), Vivo, like our fellow shareholders, has never received any dividend for its shareholding in the holding company. Expand The Board's recent actions, including its threat to invalidate the PIPE transaction notwithstanding 1Globe's inability to obtain such relief in seven years of litigation in Antigua, left Vivo with no choice but to initiate legal proceedings. Vivo is litigating not just to protect its own interests, but the interests of all shareholders. We are gravely concerned about the Board's improper actions which have directly undermined the Company's governance and precipitated the current crisis, as evidenced by the resignation of the Company's independent auditor, the Company's delayed filing of its annual report with the SEC, and its receipt of notification of non-compliance from the NASDAQ. Our position is clear: all shareholders deserve to be treated fairly and equitably. Importantly, the Board's current actions risk harming all shareholders, as the Board's attempt to disenfranchise long-term shareholders like Vivo sets an alarming precedent of how it values and rewards key investors and how it views the legal and contractual obligations of the Company. Indeed, the Board is now attempting to illegally exclude Vivo and another long-term shareholder from the July 8 shareholders meeting. These actions would, among other things, make it harder for Sinovac to attract investors in the future, hurting the Company and all of its shareholders. We urge all of our fellow shareholders to join us in helping to restore trust in the Company's governance. We appreciate your continued support as we work to ensure the Company's future is built on integrity, transparency, and respect for all stakeholders. Sincerely, Vivo Capital LLC About Vivo Capital Founded in 1996, Vivo Capital is a leading global healthcare investment firm with a diverse, multi-fund investment platform spanning venture capital, growth equity, buyout, and public equities. The Firm has approximately $5.3 billion in regulatory assets under management and has invested in over 430 public and private companies globally. Headquartered in Palo Alto, California, the Vivo team consists of more than 75 multi-disciplinary professionals. Vivo invests broadly in healthcare across multiple sub-sectors, including biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and healthcare services, with a focus on the largest healthcare markets globally. 1 Sinovac's Form 6-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the 'SEC') dated April 21, 2025, available at 2 Press Release, Sinovac Management Statement Regarding Auditor Resignation, available at: 3 SAIF Partners IV L.P.'s Schedule 13D filed with the SEC, available at: 4 Sinovac's Form 12b-25 (Notification of Late Filings) filed with the SEC dated April 29, 2025, available at 5 Sinovac's Form 6-K filed with the SEC dated May 23, 2025, available at Expand
Hindustan Times
16-05-2025
- Business
- Hindustan Times
CBI sends fresh proof before Mehul Choksi's hearing
Ahead of an Antwerp court's scheduled hearing of jailed fugitive diamantaire Mehul Choksi's bail plea on Friday, India has sent fresh evidence in four more bank fraud cases – other than the Punjab National Bank (PNB) case – along with warrants to the Belgian authorities in a bid to strengthen its extradition request, people familiar with the matter said on Thursday. Indian authorities are also likely to hire a legal team in Europe to assist the local team of Belgian prosecutors during the extradition proceedings, they added. Choksi, 65, was arrested on April 11 by the Antwerp police based on an extradition request sent by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) last year and has been lodged in a prison there for over a month now. While rejecting his plea for bail on April 22, a court of appeal in Antwerp said fears about him fleeing are legitimate. CBI filed six bank fraud cases against Choksi and his companies between 2018 and 2022 involving amounts totaling nearly ₹13,000 crore. An official familiar with the development said: 'Last year, along with an extradition request sent in August, we sent evidence and non-bailable warrants issued by Indian courts against Choksi in two cases – the February 2018 PNB case in which Choksi is accused of swindling ₹6,097 crore and the May 2022 case pertaining to a ₹25 crore fraud involving IFCI '. 'We have now sent fresh evidence and warrants to the Belgian authorities to strengthen our existing extradition request against Choksi and ensure that he doesn't get bail', this officer added. The four bank fraud cases in which documents have been now sent are: a July 2022 case related to Choksi cheating a consortium of banks led by Canara Bank of ₹55.27 crore; three separate first information reports (FIRs) filed in December 2022 – related to cheating 28 banks led by ICICI Bank of ₹5,564 crore; cheating a consortium of nine member banks led by PNB of ₹807 crore; and another fraud on PNB of ₹375 crore. Although extradition will be argued by Belgian prosecutors on behalf of India, a second officer said that 'CBI is also in the process of hiring a private European law firm as the Indian government is serious about bringing Choksi to India'. Officials said that during the extradition proceedings, India will highlight that Choksi is a habitual offender who deliberately evades court proceedings so that fresh extradition proceedings are initiated in a new country,a delating tactic he has used in the past. 'We first sent an extradition request against him to the US; he fled from there to Antigua and Barbuda. As he realized that Antiguan courts may soon give an order in India's favour, he fled to Belgium. If released on bail, he can easily flee to another European country within hours,' said the second officer cited above. Choksi's lawyer Vijay Aggarwal was not immediately available for comment. Choksi was tracked by CBI to Belgium in July last year after which it approached the Belgian government with a formal extradition request. The extradition has been sought under Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections – 120 B (criminal conspiracy), 201 (destruction of evidence), 409 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), 477A (falsification of accounts), and sections 7 and 13 (bribery) of the Prevention of Corruption act. Besides, CBI has also invoked the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC) and United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) in its extradition request. Belgium examined India's request at various levels and approved initiating action in the matter after it was convinced about the 'dual criminality' clause which is listed in the 1901 extradition treaty between two countries. Choksi has evaded CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which is conducting a parallel money laundering probe, since 2018. After fleeing from India in January 2018, he acquired citizenship of Antigua and Barbuda.
Time of India
22-04-2025
- Time of India
Mehul Choksi's bail plea rejected by Belgian court
In a significant setback for Mehul Choksi, wanted in connection with the $2-billion Punjab National Bank fraud, a Belgian Court has denied his bail plea, citing concerns about him evading law enforcement. The court highlighted Choksi's history of fleeing India and acquiring Antiguan nationality, dismissing his health concerns and rejecting the offer of a GPS tracker. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads New Delhi: In a big blow to Mehul Choksi , one of the prime accused in a $2-billion Punjab National Bank fraud case, a Belgian Court Tuesday rejected his bail to release Choksi on bail, a three-member bench of the Belgian Court ruled that there is a legitimate apprehension of Choksi evading the grip of Belgian law enforcing Belgian Court also ruled that Choksi had fled India and acquired the nationality of Antigua, said people in the know. The court further held that the risk of Choksi fleeing Belgium cannot be counterbalanced with measures of fixing deposits (by Choksi).Significantly, the court also found little force in Choksi's plea for immediate release on grounds of ill health. While the court recorded Choksi's claims of poor health, the court also held that Choksi has failed to demonstrate that he is not receiving requisite follow up for his medical checkups in the Belgian in the day, Choksi was produced before the court in handcuffs. He was later uncuffed to attend the court proceedings. The arguments and counter-arguments, as per the Belgian law, took place in Dutch language. The prosecutor presented its case following which the defence counsel for Choksi pressed for an immediate lawyers offered that Choksi will wear a global positioning system (GPS) tracker anklet on his foot to monitor his movement if he is enlarged on bail. According to people in the know, Choksi was given the aid of an interpreter since the entire court proceedings took place in Dutch hearing both the sides-prosecution and defence-the court asked Choksi if he were to say something to the court. Choksi fervently argued in favour of a bail. He told the court that he wants to be with his family, said people quoted first reported by ET on April 14, Choksi was arrested by the Belgian Police earlier this month at the behest of the CBI. Meanwhile, as reported by ET on April 15, the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) has reached out to 10 countries in a bid to confiscate the foreign assets of which probes money-laundering cases, is seeking to liquidate Choksi's assets and return the money to victims of the bank fraud, even as CBI is pushing for his has sent 15 letters rogatory over the past few months to Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, the US, Belgium, China, Italy, Japan, the UK and the United Arab Emirates, formally requesting details of companies, assets, bank accounts and other information related to Choksi and his Gitanjali Group of companies. The letters to Thailand, the US, Japan and the Emirates also seek execution of provisional orders issued by Indian authorities for attaching Choksi's assets worth ₹85 crore.
Russia Today
15-04-2025
- Politics
- Russia Today
India seeks extradition of wanted diamond tycoon from Belgium
The Belgian authorities have apprehended Indian fugitive diamond businessman Mehul Choksi and confirmed his custody on Monday, according to media reports. Choksi, along with his nephew Nirav Modi, is wanted in India by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for his alleged involvement in a $1.8 billion loan fraud case involving one of India's largest public-sector banks. Choksi, currently an Antiguan citizen, was apprehended near his residence in Antwerp, Belgium, reports said. The Belgian Federal Public Service of Justice confirmed his detention, stating, '[Mr. Choksi] is being detained in anticipation of further judicial proceedings. Access to his legal counsel has been assured.' " We can confirm that the Indian authorities have introduced an extradition request for Choksi,' The Hindu cited the Belgian Justice Department as saying. Choksi's case will come up for hearing in Belgian courts next week, the newspaper added. Reports indicate he obtained Belgian residency in November 2023, facilitated by his marriage to a Belgian national. Prior to his move to Belgium, Choksi cited medical reasons, specifically chronic lymphocytic leukemia, as grounds for his inability to travel, as evidenced by documents submitted to a special court in Mumbai in February. This is not the first time New Delhi has sought Choksi's extradition. In 2021, a court in Dominica dismissed a petition from India's investigators for his extradition. The decision came after Choksi alleged that he was kidnapped and physically assaulted by individuals working on behalf of the Indian government. Following this, the international law enforcement agency Interpol withdrew its Red Notice against Choksi. His lawyers had argued that his treatment constituted human rights violations and that he was being 'politically targeted' by the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. 'It goes without saying that we will fight that extradition, we have serious questions about the course of events,' Choksi's Belgian lawyer Simon Bekaert told the newspaper De Standaard, adding that Choksi would not receive a 'fair trial' in India. The Indian Ministry of External Affairs declined to comment on the case, but Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal said the arrest of Choksi was a result of the government's successful diplomatic efforts. Senior Advocate and former Additional Solicitor General Aman Lekhi told news outlet India Today that the legal arguments made by Choksi to avoid extradition seemed to be weak and were unlikely to succeed. However, other experts believe the process to extradite him will be lengthy. India and Belgium signed an extradition treaty in March 2020. READ MORE: Fugitive billionaire jeweller Nirav Modi last seen in UK, Indian authorities claim
