Delhi District Court
Uoi vs . Rajiv Chander Kant Shah on 22 April, 2017
CC No. 08/01/2013 UOI Vs. Rajiv Chander Kant Shah Case No. 19608/2016 22.04.2017 Extradition Inquiry Report 1.
Vide this order, I propose to conclude the inquiry initiated on receipt of a request from the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India vide letter dated 19.02.2002, made U/Sec. 5 of the Indian Extradition Act, 1962, for inquring into the allegations of commission of certain offences by Sh. Rajiv Chander Kant Shah (hereinafter referred to as "fugitive criminal"- in short "FC" ) within the territory of United States of America (hereinafter referred as "the Requesting State").
2. Allegations against the FC are that from 01.09.1998 to the beginning of March 2000 FC and his brother Sanjeev Chander Kant Shah entered into a conspiracy and used their positions as officers in Midwest Mortgage, a Mortgage company, to commit bank fraud. They did so by submitting altered and falsified documents to make loan sold to other banks by their company appear more attractive. Thereafter, between on or about February 18, 1999 and on or about September 01, 2000 FC and his brother conspired and transferred approximately $ 1.2 Million from United States to America and $ 302,550 into the bank account of Chaya Shah on or about February, 21, 2000 and August 03, 2000 respectively. The FC thereby violated Section 1344, Section 371 and Section 1956 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
CC NO.: 08/1/13 UOI Vs. Rajiv Chander Kant Shah 1 of 20
3. On 14.03.2000 a grand jury impanelled under the laws of requesting state returned an indictment against the FC and his brother in case No. 00-CR-55 to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. On 24.10.2000 the same grand jury issued a superseding indictment alleging additional crimes against the FC in case No. 00-CR-55, and this superseding indictment replaced the original indictment. A warrant of arrest against the FC was issued on 15.03.2000 by the United States District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin on the basis of which a Red Corner Notice bearing control No. A-493/5-2000 was issued against the FC. After receiving superseding indictment, the same District Court issued another warrant of arrest on 03.05.2002.
4. On the basis of aforementioned RCN the FC was apprehended at the Immigration Counter, IGI Airport on the night intervening 11.01.2002 and 12.01.2002. Intimation was sent to the authorities at USA and Ministry of External Affairs, Central Government received the request from the US Department of Justice, Criminal Division through their Embassy in New Delhi on 15.01.2002 for provisional arrest of the FC for the purpose of extradition to the United States on the basis of Extradition Treaty signed between India and USA published on 14.09.1999 bearing CC NO.: 08/1/13 UOI Vs. Rajiv Chander Kant Shah 2 of 20 GSR No. 633(E). This was followed by a formal request dated 29.01.2002 forwarded by note verbale dated 08.02.2002 received by MEA on 11.02.2002 for extradition of the FC to the Requesting State, resulting into the request letter dated 19.02.2002 referred in para no. 1 above.
5. Union of India examined one witness i.e PW-1 Sh. D.K Ghosh, in support of the request. Sh. D.K Ghosh proved the documents received from the requesting state to establish prima facie case and same are as below:-
(i) Ex.AW-1/A is the treaty between India and USA notified by GSR No. 633(E) dated 14.09.1999.
(ii) Ex.AW-1/B is the order dated 19.02.2001 issued by Sh. Y.C Narang, Deputy Secretary to Government of India (whose signatures were identified by PW-1 stating that he had seen him writing and signing official correspondence during the course of official business) and Ex.AW-1/C is the corrigendum dated 26.02.2002 stating that the date of order Ex.AW-1/B is 19.02.2002 and not 19.02.2001.
(iii) Ex.AW-1/D is the affidavit of Steven M. Biskupic, Assistant United States Attorney briefly stating about the allegations and the violations, and Ex. AW-1/N, Ex.AW-1/U and Ex.AW-1/BB are the supplementary affidavits of Mr. Steven M. Biskupic, Assistant CC NO.: 08/1/13 UOI Vs. Rajiv Chander Kant Shah 3 of 20 United States Attorney along with affidavit Ex.AW-1/D, Ex.AW-1/E1 to Ex.AW-1/E10 are the annexures out of which Ex.AW-1/E1 is the indictment and superseding indictment. Ex.AW-1/E2 is the warrant of arrest dated 15.03.2000, Ex.AW-1/E3 to Ex.AW-1/E9 are statutory provisions and Ex.AW-1/E10 is the affidavit of FBI Special Agent C. Todd Ratcliffe along with documents Ex.AW-1/F1 to Ex.AW-1/F4. Ex.AW-1/F1 to Ex.AW-1/F3 are the credit reports and Ex.AW-1/F4 is the photograph of the FC. Ex.AW-1/CC is the supplementary affidavit of FBI Special Agent C. Todd Ratcliffe along with annexure Ex.AW-1/DD showing wire transfer of funds by the FC from USA to India.
(iv) Ex.AW-1/O is the affidavit of John E. Tanner, an official from Key Bank official.
(v) Ex.AW-1/FF is the affidavit of Attorney of Key Bank.
(vi) Ex.AW-1/EE is the affidavit dated 15.03.2002 sworn by one Rhonda Barber, an employee of Midwest Mortgage.
(vii) Ex.AW-1/G, Ex.AW-1/L, Ex.AW-1/R and Ex.AW-1/Y are the certificates certifying the documents, signed by Colin L. Powell, Secretary of State, USA.
(viii) Ex.AW-1/H, Ex.AW-1/M1, Ex.AW-1/S and Ex.AW-1/Z are the certificates certifying the documents, signed by Attorney General, United States of America.
(ix) Ex.AW-1/J, Ex.AW-1/M2, Ex.AW-1/T and Ex.AW-1/AA are CC NO.: 08/1/13 UOI Vs. Rajiv Chander Kant Shah 4 of 20 the certificates certifying the documents, signed by Deputy Director, Office of International affairs (Criminal Division) Department of Justice, USA.
(x) Ex.AW-1/Q and Ex.AW-1/X are the certificates of authentication issued by Embassy of India at Washington D.C authenticating the certificates signed by Secretary of State, Attorney General of USA and Deputy Director.
(xi) Ex.AW-1/A is the note verbale dated 18.02.2002 received by CPV Division, MEA on 11.02.2002 and Ex.AW-1/P is the note verbale dated 01.07.2002 forwarding supplementary documents.
(xii) Ex.AW-1/V is the warrant of arrest over superseding indictment against the FC and Ex.AW-1/W is the warrant of arrest against his brother.
6. During cross-examination FC put the following documents to PW-1:-
(i) Ex.PW-1/DA is the copy of list of dates and events furnished by the FC.
(ii) Ex.PW-1/DB is the copy of writ petition filed by the FC before the Hon'ble High Court.
(iii) Ex.PW-1/DC are certain orders of Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid writ petition along with affidavit of father of the FC.
(iv) Ex.PW-1/DD is the reply of Union of India to the aforesaid CC NO.: 08/1/13 UOI Vs. Rajiv Chander Kant Shah 5 of 20 writ petition.
(v) Ex.PW-1/DE is the rejoinder affidavit.
(vi) Ex.PW-1/DF is copy of the reply of FC to the request of extradition.
7. During further cross-examination FC put his defence to PW-1 to which PW1 replied that he did not have personal knowledge about the case.
8. FC also submitted a written statement after completion of evidence.
9. Final arguments were heard. Record perused.
10. Ld. SPP for UOI argued that a prima facie case is made out against the FC and he should be extradited.
11. Ld. counsel for FC argued that the case was settled by him and criminal complaints bearing no. 00-M-440 and 00-M-441 were dismissed by the US Court. It is argued that these criminal complaints pertained to the charges of bank fraud. It is further argued that money laundering was not an offence in India in the year 1999-2000 and therefore FC cannot be extradited for the said CC NO.: 08/1/13 UOI Vs. Rajiv Chander Kant Shah 6 of 20 offence.
12. I have considered the rival contentions. Record perused.
13. The relevant legal provisions and case law for deciding the present inquiry are as under:-
Section 2(3)(c) of Extradition Act, 1962 defines' Extradition Offence' which means:-
(i) in relation to a foreign State, being a treaty State, an offence provided for in the extradition treaty with that State;
(ii) in relation to a foreign State other than a treaty State an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year under the laws of India or of a foreign State and includes a composite offence.
Section 7 & 10 of Extradition Act, 1962 read as under :- (7)Procedure before Magistrate. (1) when the fugitive criminal appears or is brought before the magistrate, the magistrate shall inquire into the case in the same manner and shall have the same jurisdiction and powers, as nearly as may be, as if the case were one triable by a court of session or High Court.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the magistrate shall, in particular, take such evidence as may be produced in support of the requisition of the foreign State 1*** and on behalf of the fugitive criminal, including any evidence to show that the offence of which the fugitive criminal is accused or has been convicted is an offence of political character or is not an extraditions offence.
(3) If the magistrate is of opinion that a prima facie case is not made out in support of the requisition of the foreign State 1*xxx, he shall discharge the fugitive criminal. (4) If the magistrate is of opinion that a prima facie case is made out in support of the requisition of the foreign State, 1*** he may commit the fugitive criminal to prison to await CC NO.: 08/1/13 UOI Vs. Rajiv Chander Kant Shah 7 of 20 the orders of the Central Government, and shall report the result of his inquiry to the Central Government, and shall forward together with such report, any written statement which the fugitive criminal may desire to submit for the consideration of the Central Government.
(10) Receipt of evidence of exhibits, depositions and other documents and authentication thereof. (1) In any proceedings against a fugitive criminal of a foreign State 1*xxx under this Chapter, exhibits and depositions (whether received or taken in the presence of the person against whom they are used or not) and copies thereof and official certificates of facts and judicial documents stating facts may, if duly authenticated, be received as evidence. (2) Warrants, depositions or statements on oath, which purport to have been issued or taken by any court of justice outside India or copies thereof, certificates of, or judicial documents stating the facts of, conviction before any such court shall be deemed to be duly authenticated if--
(a) the warrant purports to be signed by a judge, magistrate or officer of the State or country where the same was issued or acting in or for such State or country:
(b) the depositions or statements or copies thereof purport to be certified under the hand of a judge, magistrate or officer of the State or country where the same were taken, or acting in or for such State or country, to be the original depositions or statements or to be true copies thereof, as the case may require.
(c) the certificate of, or judicial document stating the fact of, a conviction purports to be certified by a judge, magistrate or officer of the State or country where the conviction took place or acting in or for such State;
(d) the warrants, depositions, statements, copies, certificate and judicial documents, as the case may be, are authenticated by the oath of some witness or by the official seal of a minister of the State or country where the same were 2*xxx issued, taken or given.
Article 2 (a) of the extradition treaty defines extraditable CC NO.: 08/1/13 UOI Vs. Rajiv Chander Kant Shah 8 of 20 offence as under:-
1. An offense shall be an extraditable offense if it is punishable under the laws in both Contracting States by deprivation of liberty, including imprisonment, for a period of more than one year or by a more severe penalty.
2. An offense shall also be an extraditable offense if it consists or an attempt or a conspiracy to commit, aiding or abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of or being an accessory before or after the fact to, any offense described in paragraph 1.
3. For the purposes of this Article, an offense shall be an extraditable offense:
(a) whether or not the laws I the Contracting States place the offense within the same category of offenses by the same terminology;
(b) whether or not the offense is one for which United States Federal law requires the showing of such matters as interstate transportation, or use of the mails or of other facilities affecting interstate or foreign commerce, such matters being merely for the purpose of establishing jurisdiction in a United States federal court; or
(c) whether or note is relates to taxation or revenue or is one of a purely fiscal character.
4. Extradition shall be granted for an extraditable offense regardless of where the act or acts constituting the offense were committed.
5. If extradition has been granted for an extraditable offense, it shall also be granted for any other offenses specified in the request, even if the latter offense is punishable by less than one year's deprivation of liberty, provided that all other requirements for extradition are met.
In Sarabjit Rick Singh v. Union of India (UOI), (2008) 2 SCC 417 their Lordships held:
"34. Sections 208 and 209 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1898 contemplate taking of such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution or on behalf of the accused that may be called for by the Magistrate.
CC NO.: 08/1/13 UOI Vs. Rajiv Chander Kant Shah 9 of 20 Compliance of the principle of natural justice or the extent thereof and the requirement of law is founded in the statutory scheme. The Magistrate is to make an enquiry. He is not to hold a trial. Code of Criminal Procedure makes a clear distinction between an enquiry, investigation and trial. Authority of the Magistrate to make an enquiry would not lead to a final decision wherefor a report is to be prepared. Findings which can be rendered in the said enquiry may either lead to discharge of the fugitive criminal or his commitment to prison or make a report to the Central Government forwarding therewith a written statement which the fugitive criminal may desire to submit for consideration of the Central Government. Sub-section (2) of Section 7 envisages taking of such evidence as may be produced in support of the requisition of the foreign State as also on behalf of the fugitive criminal. It is open to the fugitive criminal to show that the offence alleged to have been committed by him is of political character or the offence is not an extraditable offence. He may also show that no case of extradition has been made out even otherwise. The Magistrate, therefore, in both the situations is required to arrive at a prima facie finding either in favour of fugitive criminal or in support of the requesting state. [ See Sohan Lal Gupta (dead) through LRs. And others vs. Asha Devi Gupta (Smt) and others : (2003)7 SCC 492 ].
36. In a proceeding for extradition no witness is examined for establishing an allegation made in the requisition of the foreign State. The meaning of the word "evidence" has to be considered keeping in view the tenor of the Act. No formal trial is to be held. Only a report is required to be made. The Act for the aforementioned purposes only confers jurisdiction and powers on the Magistrate which he could have exercised for the purpose of making an order of commitment. Although not very relevant, we may observe that in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the powers of the committing Magistrate has greatly been reduced. He is now required to look into the entire case through a very narrow hole. Even the power of discharge in the Magistrate at that stage has been taken away."
CC NO.: 08/1/13 UOI Vs. Rajiv Chander Kant Shah 10 of 20 In Smt. Nina Pillai and others v. Union of India and others, 1997 Crl. LJ 2359, this court, considering the scope of inquiry to be conducted by a Magistrate under the Extradition Act, observed:-
"9.We have given our careful consideration and thought to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is clear from the scheme of the Extradition Act that pursuant to a request made under Section 4 of the Act, the order contemplated to be passed for a Magisterial inquiry under Section 5 does not contemplate a pre-decisional or prior hearing. Section 5 of the Act is an enabling provision by which, a Magistrate is appointed to inquire into the case. The Magistrate on the order of inquiry being passed by Central Government issues a warrant of arrest of the fugitive criminal. The whole purpose is to apprehend or prevent the further escape of a person who is accused of certain offences and/or is convicted and wanted by the requesting State for trial or for undergoing the sentence passed or to be passed. The Act contains sufficient safeguards in the procedure to be followed in the inquiry by the Magistrate to protect the fugitive criminal. The Magistrate is to receive evidence from the requesting State as well as of the fugitive criminal. The fugitive criminal is entitled to show that the offences of which he is accused or convicted are offences of political character or not an extradition offence. Besides, the Magistrate, if he comes to a conclusion that a prima facie case is not made in support of the requisition by the requesting State, he is required to discharge fugitive criminal. The Act also has provisions under section 25 of the Act for grant of bail. The Act under section 29 confers wide powers on the Central Government to discharge the accused or cancel any warrants issued, if it finds that the application for surrender of return of the fugitive criminal has not been made in good faith. It may also discharge the fugitive criminal in the interest of justice or for political reasons if it is unjust or inexpedient to surrender or return the fugitive criminal. We are of the view that the challenge to Section 5 of the Act on the ground that it does not provide any pre-decisional hearing or is vocative of natural justice is without any merit and misconceived and it CC NO.: 08/1/13 UOI Vs. Rajiv Chander Kant Shah 11 of 20 must fail.
11. We may notice here that upon receiving information with sufficient particulars from a requesting State that a fugitive criminal is wanted for any alleged offence committed in the requesting State or for undergoing trial or sentence, the Central Government passes an order under Section 5 of the Act, appointing a Magistrate to inquire into the case. The Criminal Procedure Code also provides for the arrest of a person without warrant who is concerned in any cognizable offence or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has been received or a reasonable suspicion exists of his having been so concerned in the offence, under Section 41 of the Code. Accordingly, on credible information being received from a requesting State, with sufficient particulars, about a person having been involved in any offence, the said person could be arrested in India without warrant. It is now fairly well-settled that the Magisterial inquiry which is conducted pursuant to the request for extradition is not a trial. The said enquiry decides nothing about the innocence or guilt of the fugitive criminal. The main purpose of the inquiry is to determine whether there is a prima facie case or reasonable grounds which warrant the fugitive criminal being sent to the demanding State. The jurisdiction is limited to the former part of the request and does not concern itself with the merits of the trial, subject to exceptions, as outlined in the preceding paragraph 7, in which case the request for extradition is denied by the Central Government."
In Kamlesh Babulal Aggarwal Vs. Union of India (UOI) and another, 2008(104) DRJ 178, it was observed:
"15. In our opinion, the power of the Magistrate in conducting an inquiry under Section 7 of the Act is akin to framing of the charge under Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. At the stage of the framing of charge even a strong suspicion founded upon material and presumptive opinion would enable the court in framing a charge against the accused. At that stage, the court possess CC NO.: 08/1/13 UOI Vs. Rajiv Chander Kant Shah 12 of 20 wider discretion in the exercise of which it can determine the question whether the material on record is such on the basis of which a conviction can be said reasonably to be possible. The requirement of Section 228 also is of a prima facie case. Sufficiency of evidence resulting into conviction is not to be seen at that stage and which will be seen by the trial court. At that stage meticulous consideration of materials is uncalled for. The persons who are not examined by the original investigating agency may be examined by another investigating agency to make the investigation more effective. The materials so obtained could also be used at trial. The court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. If the court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further, then a charge has to be framed. The sifting of evidence at this stage is permissible only for a limited purpose to find out a prima facie case but the court cannot decide at this stage that the witness is reliable or not. At the stage of framing of charge, evidence is not to be weighed. The court is not to hold an elaborate inquiry at that stage.
16. Section 7 (3) and (4) of the Act in fact require a prima facie case only "in support of requisition". Reading the said provision Along with Section 29, we feel that the ambit of inquiry under Section 7 is in fact narrower than Section 228 CrPC and is limited to find that the fugitive is not being targeted for extraneous reasons."
14. A reading of aforesaid legal provisions makes it clear that this court while conducting an inquiry under Extradition Act, 1962 has to look into the following aspects:-
(a) That the offence for which extradition of the FC is sought is an extraditable offence.
(b) That duly endorsed and authenticated warrants of arrest CC NO.: 08/1/13 UOI Vs. Rajiv Chander Kant Shah 13 of 20 have been received against the FC.
(c) That there is prima facie case against the FC for initiating the trial.
(d) That the documents sought to be relied upon to show the prima facie case are duly authenticated.
(e) That the offence for which extradition of the FC is sought is not a political offence.
15. It is further clear on the reading of case laws that the court does not have to decide that the FC is innocent or guilty but only has to see that the material is sufficient to send the FC for trial. Scope of inquiry under Extradition Act, 1962 is very limited and court cannot sift the evidence against the FC and decide its veracity and credibility.
16. FC has been accused of bank fraud. Allegations are that he, in conspiracy with his brother, did material alterations so as to improve the credit history of persons to whom his company i.e Midwest Mortgage had advanced loans, and these altered credit reports were thereafter given to the Key Bank, First Union Bank and Bank One, who purchased the said loans from Midwest Mortgage on the basis of altered credit reports. The credit reports were altered in such a manner as to improve the credit history of CC NO.: 08/1/13 UOI Vs. Rajiv Chander Kant Shah 14 of 20 borrower. Ingredients of the allegations point towards commission of offences of forgery for the purpose of cheating and cheating under Section 468/420 IPC, which are punishable with maximum imprisonment of seven years. As per the allegations FC violated Section 1344, 371 and Section 1956 of Title 18 of United States Code which are punishable with imprisonment upto 30 years, 5 years and 20 years respectively. The limitation period as per US Laws is that the information of the offence has to be received within 8 years of commission, while there is no limitation to try an offence punishable upto 7 years as per Indian Law. It is not a contention of the FC that the offence alleged against him is one of political nature, burden to prove which was upon the FC. Hence, the alleged offence of Bank Fraud conspiracy is an extraditable offence within the meaning of Article 2 of the Treaty between India and Requesting State, and Section 2(3)(c) of the Extradition Act, 1962. However, the act of Money Laundering conspiracy was not an offence in India in the year 1999 and 2000 when the said offence was allegedly committed by the FC in the territory of requesting state. Thus, the offence of money laundering conspiracy is not an extraditable offence.
17. The documents received from USA have been certified by the Secretary of State, USA as is required under Section 7 of the CC NO.: 08/1/13 UOI Vs. Rajiv Chander Kant Shah 15 of 20 Extradition Act, 1962. The documents have also been duly authenticated by the concerned court of USA. The certificates issued by Secretary of State, Attorney General and Deputy Director have been authenticated by the Embassy of India located at Washington D.C.
18. The warrants of arrest dated 03.05.2002 have also been duly signed and authenticated. These warrants of arrest were issued against the FC by the concerned court of USA for answering superseding indictment.
19. There is a prima facie case against the FC as there is sufficient material on record to send him for trial. The affidavit of FBI Special Agent, which is Ex.AW-1/E10 consisting of facts revealed during the investigation of the present case by him is clear to that effect. It is specified in the said affidavit that Midwest Mortgage, of which FC was the President, would advance loan and resell packages to the financial institutions i.e Key Bank, First Union Bank and Bank One. Representatives of these banks discovered after purchasing the loans that credit reports received from Midwest Mortgage did not contain accurate financial information. The credit reports provided by Trans Union, directly obtained by Key Bank, showed discrepancy and material CC NO.: 08/1/13 UOI Vs. Rajiv Chander Kant Shah 16 of 20 alterations in such a manner as would improve a borrower's history. When the FC was confronted by the Investigation Officer he denied his involvement and produced certificate from Trans Union to the effect that credit reports could not be altered. FC also averred that the difference in the credit reports may be due to time lapse between the period when reports were printed by Midwest Mortgage and when those were printed by Key Bank. However, while interrogating the employees of Midwest Mortgage, it was revealed that the FC had directed one of his employee to change that aspect of Edge Software of Trans Union that allowed credit reports to be saved in disk, after detection of fraud by the banks, and three computers of Midwest Mortgage were replaced 2 to 4 weeks later. FC asked one its employee to destroy a stack of credit reports after fraud was detected and replace it with new ones and the software was changed from Edge to Tri-Merge. Review of the computers of Midwest Mortgage revealed that credit reports had been placed in temporary files in computer used by the brother of the FC and he accessed the text of the reports. It is also stated in the supplementary affidavit that one of the Manager of Illinois branch of Midwest Mortgage, namely Rod. Schuelt, admitted during investigation that he had himself succeeded in altering the credit reports. The representatives of banks, which were defrauded, stated during investigation that they would not have CC NO.: 08/1/13 UOI Vs. Rajiv Chander Kant Shah 17 of 20 purchased the loan if true credit reports had been shown to them. The statements of employees of Midwest Mortgage, representatives of defrauded banks and examination of computers that revealed alterations in the credit reports, as summarized by the investigation officer in his affidavits filed before this court, suggest a prima facie case against the FC for trial for the offence of bank fraud conspiracy.
20. FC submitted a written statement to this court for consideration which has been perused. He states that there are discrepancies in the statements of witnesses, evidence has only been described in the affidavit and no material was sent to support the evidence so described. As already observed, scope of inquiry before this court is limited and veracity of evidence can't be tested here in the manner as it is done during a trial.
Conclusion
21. After considering the entire facts, circumstances and material in support of the Extradition Request, I am of the view that the prescribed procedure has been followed in as much as the Extradition request has been submitted through diplomatic channel, along with documents including the duly authenticated and endorsed Arrest Warrants and required information as per the CC NO.: 08/1/13 UOI Vs. Rajiv Chander Kant Shah 18 of 20 Extradition Act, 1962 and the concerned Extradition Treaty. Thus, I conclude my report with following observations:-
(a) Offence of Bank Fraud conspiracy for which indictment is pending against the FC in Case No.00-CR-55 in the District Court of United States, Eastern District of Wisconsin is an extraditable offence. However, the offence of Money Laundering conspiracy is not an extraditable offence.
(b) The Warrants for the arrest of the fugitive criminal are duly authenticated and endorsed.
(c) There is a prima facie case against the FC for initiating a trial for the offence of bank fraud conspiracy.
In view of my above report, I hereby recommend to Union of India the extradition of the fugitive criminal Rajiv Chander Kant Shah, in Case No. 00-CR-55 to the Requesting State i.e United States of America for facing trial for the offence of bank fraud conspiracy.
CC NO.: 08/1/13 UOI Vs. Rajiv Chander Kant Shah 19 of 20 A copy of this report be sent to UOI through the learned counsel and one copy be given to the fugitive criminal free of costs. The fugitive criminal is also being informed of his right to file written statements/representations as per Section 17(3) of The Extradition Act, 1962.
(Jyoti Kler) ACMM-01/ND/22.04.2017.
CC NO.: 08/1/13 UOI Vs. Rajiv Chander Kant Shah 20 of 20