Defence: NiMo fears lynching, won’t return

Mumbai: Nirav Modi’s counsel on Saturday vehemently oppo-sed declaring him a fugitive. Advocate Vijay Agar-wal expressed Nirav’s appr-ehension, citing mob-lynching incidents in the country. He argued before the court that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) could not declare Nirav a fugitive because it had not completed the proper procedure under the Fugitive Economic Offenders (FEO) Act. Advocate Agarwal argued that Nirav was a designer by profession and could not tell the ED about finances. He further argued that when Nirav left the country, no case was registered against him, so the ED could not say that he had escaped from the country under suspicious circumstances.

Advocate Agarwal while arguing before the Preve-ntion of Money Laund-ering Act (PMLA) court said, “Nirav was not able to join the probe because of security threats in India from private persons, the families of those who have been detained in the PNB case, landlords, creditors who have not been paid, and customers whose jewellery has been taken away by the ED,” he said.

“Nirav’s 50-ft tall effigy was burnt in India. There was evidence of mob-lynching and he was compared to ‘Ravan’. He has been projected as evil and made the poster boy of the bank fraud,” said advocate Agarwal.

According to the ED, Nirav refused to join the probe despite emails and summons issued to him. ED counsel Hiten Venegaonkar said that all these arguments had nothing to do with the Fugitive Act (FEO). Advocate Agarwal however said that the diamond trader had responded to the emails sent by investigating agencies and expressed his inability to return due to security threats.

Unlike liquor baron Vijay Mallya, who was an accused in a loan default of over Rs 9,000 crore, Nirav had no Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) when he left the country, advocate Agarwal argued. He said that being a (jewellery) designer, Nirav was sort of an “artist” who could not provide any financial information as desired by the ED.

“All finances were taken care of by employees who are already in the custody of the investigating agency. He has no record or data. What are they going to investigate with him, as they have taken away all his source of information,” advocate Agarwal said.

Countering advocate Agarwal’s submission, advocate Venegaonkar said that all these arguments had nothing to do with the Fugitive Act (FEO). “As far as security threats are concerned, any prudent person who is fearing threats to his life needs to file a police complaint. Until now, there is no material before the ED or the court (about any such complaint). So these points are irrelevant,” he said.