Fugitive economic offender Vijay Mallya’s barrister confirmed for the first time in a British court that the 65-year-old has applied for asylum, which is why he has not been sent back to India despite the UK courts having upheld India’s extradition request to send him back in May 2020 to face charges of fraud by false representation, conspiracy to defraud, and laundering money.
Philip Marshall QC, representing Mallya in his bankruptcy proceedings in the high court - which have been brought by the consortium of Indian banks to whom Mallya owes £1.05 billion, whilst making an application for £2.8 million from the court funds office to fund Mallya’s legal fees and living expenses, was asked by deputy insolvency and companies court judge Barnett what the outcome of Mallya’s extradition proceedings were.
Marshall replied: “The extradition request was upheld. He is still here because there is another route. You can apply to the secretary of state for a status, meaning you won’t go back. This is a historic route.” He also said: “Were Mallya to leave the jurisdiction it would undermine the whole point of the bankruptcy proceedings and make it more difficult for the trustee to carry out enquiries and his resistance to extradition and costs incurred are beneficial to the estate.” It is widely thought that Tiger Hanif - accused of being the mastermind of the 1993 Surat bomb blasts - was granted asylum, which led to his extradition to India being reversed in 2019. He had exhausted all avenues of appeal in the UK courts in 2013 and was due to be extradited, but, like Mallya, never went back. A decision was later made by the home secretary to withdraw the order for his extradition. On September 11, 2020 the bankruptcy petitioners and Mallya entered into a consent order whereby the net proceeds of sale of property in France worth €3.27 million - ultimately owned by Mallya - were paid into the court funds office.
