Bombay High Court rejects plea by Mehul Choksi challenging ED application to declare him a fugitive economic offender

The Bombay High Court Thursday rejected the petitions filed by businessman Mehul Choksi challenging the applications of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to declare Choksi a fugitive economic offender (FEO). .Single-judge Justice SV Kotwal pronounced the verdict today in four petitions filed by Choksi drawing attention to several alleged procedural lapses which he said would substantiate why he should not be declared an FEO. "I find that all the requirements under Section 4 of the FEO Act and under Rule 3 of the FEO Rules are properly complied with in this case. Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere and hence the application is rejected," the Court stated. .ED had approached the special court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) with an application under Sections 4 and 12 of the FEO Act to declare Choksi an FEO and confiscate his properties. As per the 2018 law, a person can be declared FEO if a warrant has been issued against him for an offence involving an amount of ₹100 crore or more and if the person has left the country and refuses to return.Choksi is an accused in the Punjab National Bank (PNB) fraud case worth ₹14,500 crore.He had filed an application before the special court in 2019 seeking to dismiss ED's application for declaring him an FEO, the special court rejected the same in August 2019, after which Choksi approached the High Court. In January 2020, the High Court had granted a stay on the final order to be passed by the Special Court proceedings.Justice Kotwal upheld the dismissal order of the special court and also vacated the 2020 interim order of the High Court..In August this year, ED moved the High Court seeking a review of this stay claiming Choksi had already fled the country. Advocates Hiten Venegaonkar for ED argued that Choksi is an accused under the PMLA Act and prosecution against him was pending due to the stay order of the High Court. He argued that the special judge was not proceeding to hear the matter afresh as was required after an efflux of 3 years because of the High Court stay. Hence, Venegaonkar prayed that the High Court review its stay order. .Advocates Vijay Aggarwal and Rahul Agarwal for Choksi argued that Choksi left the country much before the registration of any FIRs against him and it was not to avoid any criminal prosecution. It was also submitted that he was not refusing to return to India but was being prevented from doing so due to his inability to travel as a consequence of his medical condition.They pointed out that in July 2021, Choksi had been granted bail by the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, High Court of Justice at Commonwealth of Dominica to travel to Antigua and Barbuda to receive specialised medical attention after taking into account his neurological ailments.Aggarwal pointed out that when the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court passed its order, the Indian authorities were present in court and hence, ED could not argue that Choksi was intentionally refusing to return to India..[Read Order]