UK High Court on Thursday 5 March 2020 rejected fugitive diamond merchant Nirav Modi's bail for the fifth time. Mr Modi is fighting his extradition to India on charges over nearly USD 2 billion Punjab National Bank (PNB) fraud and money laundering case. The 49 year old, who is jailed at Wandsworth Prison since his arrest in March 2019 and is scheduled for an extradition trial in May from 11-15, made his fifth attempt at getting a bail on the basis of 'change in circumstances'. Modi appeared for the hearing via video link, clean shaven, wearing grey sweat shirt.
While Modi’s barrister Ed Fitzgerald CBE QC from Doughty Street Chambers offered doubled bail security amount (from £2mn to £4mn), an electronic tag with GPS and a private security company, paid by Modi to keep him locked in his own apartment at Centre Point in Tottenham Court Road with electronic tag and predetermined guests on recorded phone calls or visits, the judge was unsatisfied that the above mentioned measures could actually stop Mr Modi from absconding.
Arguing Mr Modi’s barrister Mr Fitzgerald said that Nirav Modi has undergone various attacks in the jail by his inmates as well as an attempt of extortion, which has resulted into deterioration of his mental health as confirmed by the psychiatrist Dr Forrester.
However CPS Barrister Nicholas Hearn argued, “If you have heard the bail history- he has had 4 bail applications. The security is doubled from £2 to £4 mn pounds. It means he has access to a considerable fund...”
He further added, “A tag could be tampered with. Security guards don’t have the power to arrest, and can't stop Mr Modi from leaving the premises. There is no lawful basis for any private company to hold him in his flat. If a security has ever done that ever- mostly they have reported a breach. They are contractually advised to do that. They cannot lawfully arrest or stop anyone.” He also raised concerns that if Mr Modi is let out, he could flee when being transferred to a court during his extradition hearing as well as during any appeals on the final judgement.
In conclusion Justice Hove said, “There is a clear qualitative difference rising in the nature of the contractual agreement between the security company and Mr Modi...The reality of private security is that they don't have power of to arrest or detain Mr Modi securely. They provide with the opportunity to notify breach or attempt to breach. But by the time that contractual obligation is complete, it’s too late. From his Central London resident to readily abscond and all trace of him to lose is high. I am not satisfied with the arrangements presented to me: tagging and security that can securely contain this applicant. It is better done within the prison. A clear need for this application to be refused. Modi has to continue in remand.”
