MAHADEV BETTING APP KINGPIN SAURABH CHANDRAKAR EXTRADITED FROM OMAN, WHEN IS SATISH SANPAL GOING TO GET ARRESTED?

The extradition of Saurabh Chandrakar from Oman is a significant achievement for India’s investigative agencies. But it also raises an uncomfortable question: why are other individuals facing separate betting-related criminal investigations still awaiting the conclusion of investigations and trials, years after the original cases were registered?

On November 1, 2026, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) brought Saurabh Chandrakar, one of the principal accused in the Mahadev Online Book betting syndicate investigation, back to India from Oman. The international operation demonstrated that geographical boundaries, overseas residences and foreign business arrangements cannot automatically place an accused beyond the reach of Indian investigative agencies.

The following day, on November 2, a Delhi court granted the CBI two days of transit remand and permitted the agency to produce Chandrakar before the Special CBI Court in Raipur by November 4.

The development is significant. It is also a reminder that India’s investigation into illegal online betting cannot end with the apprehension of one promoter. The financial ecosystem, operational intermediaries, payment channels, betting platforms, alleged beneficiaries and other persons against whom independent evidence exists must also be investigated.

And this is precisely where another name deserves public scrutiny: Satish Sanpal, the Dubai-based businessman and chairman of ANAX Holding.

Sanpal has been the subject of multiple betting-related investigations in Madhya Pradesh. Publicly available reporting identifies nine criminal cases registered against him in the state and a Look Out Circular opened at the request of the Jabalpur Superintendent of Police in August 2022.

Several of these investigations concern allegations of illegal betting operations, betting panels, alleged financial transactions and the use of betting platforms, including SatSport and SkyExchange.

Yet, as of November 3, 2026, the public record reviewed for this report does not establish a conviction against Sanpal, nor does it establish that he is an accused in the Mahadev prosecution.

That distinction is important. But it does not make the unresolved questions surrounding the separate Jabalpur investigations any less serious.

The question is no longer whether authorities know that these investigations exist. The question is what concrete progress has been made, whether all relevant financial and electronic evidence has been examined, whether international cooperation has been pursued and when these cases will finally reach their judicial conclusion.

Chandrakar’s extradition: The international betting investigation enters a decisive phase

The Mahadev Online Book investigation has exposed the alleged scale and complexity of illegal online betting operations conducted through an international network.

According to the CBI, Saurabh Chandrakar and Ravi Uppal were principal promoters of a betting syndicate operating outside India while maintaining a nationwide network of betting panels and branches.

The alleged business architecture was considerably more sophisticated than an ordinary betting website.

According to the investigating agency, the network used franchised betting panels, master credentials, intermediaries and multiple operational arrangements to enrol customers and facilitate betting on cricket, football, card games and other events.

The proceeds were allegedly collected through numerous bank accounts, layered through financial transactions and ultimately transferred overseas through hawala channels and other mechanisms.

The CBI has also alleged that a portion of the proceeds was used to pay protection money to public servants to facilitate the operation of the syndicate.

These are allegations contained in the investigating agencies’ case, not findings of guilt against every individual named or investigated.

The investigation has nevertheless expanded substantially.

On July 9, 2026, the Ministry of Home Affairs reported that the CBI had filed six chargesheets against six additional accused persons in the Mahadev-related corruption investigation. The agency also reported five chargesheets against 66 accused persons in another Mahadev betting case, involving Chandrakar, Uppal and alleged betting-panel operators.

Supplementary evidence was also filed against the principal promoters.

The Enforcement Directorate’s investigation has produced even larger estimates.

In September 2026, the ED told a Raipur court that Mahadev Online Book and associated betting platforms had allegedly generated proceeds of crime estimated at approximately ₹94,400 crore.

The estimated figures attributed to the agency included:

• Mahadev Online Book: approximately ₹75,000–80,000 crore.
• SkyExchange: approximately ₹11,000–12,000 crore.
• Lotus365: approximately ₹2,400 crore.

These figures concern alleged proceeds of crime across the wider platform ecosystem. They are investigative estimates and not amounts finally established by a court or sums recovered by the government.

The ED also provisionally attached properties valued at approximately ₹1,700 crore in March 2026, including properties in Dubai and New Delhi associated with Chandrakar and entities allegedly controlled by him and his associates.

This investigation illustrates how online betting operations can become a much larger financial investigation involving cross-border transactions, corporate structures, payment intermediaries and alleged laundering of criminal proceeds.

Chandrakar’s return to India should therefore be treated as the beginning of a critical investigative phase, not the conclusion of the Mahadev investigation.

The Sanpal question: Nine reported criminal cases and a Look Out Circular

The investigative questions surrounding Satish Sanpal are different from those surrounding Chandrakar.

According to an NDTV investigation published on August 4, 2026, nine criminal cases had been registered against Sanpal in Madhya Pradesh.

The report also disclosed that a Look Out Circular had been opened against him at the request of the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur, on August 5, 2022.

The existence of the LOC was subsequently acknowledged in proceedings before the Delhi High Court on February 4, 2026. The government’s counsel informed the court that the circular had been opened at the request of the Jabalpur Superintendent of Police.

This is not a minor administrative detail.

The reported LOC indicates that the Jabalpur police had sought immigration-related assistance concerning an individual whose alleged involvement in multiple criminal cases was being investigated.

Sanpal’s legal position must also be accurately recorded.

In a Delhi High Court order dated May 6, 2026, his counsel submitted that he had obtained bail in eight of the nine criminal cases. In the remaining matter, the offence was stated to be bailable and the process of obtaining bail was underway.

The same proceedings recorded that he had not been declared a proclaimed offender by a competent court.

Therefore, describing Sanpal as a convicted criminal, or automatically calling him a proclaimed offender, would be inaccurate.

But the existence of bail does not amount to an acquittal. Nor does a Look Out Circular, by itself, establish guilt.

What matters now is whether the investigation has been completed properly, whether the chargesheets can withstand judicial scrutiny and whether the trials are progressing without avoidable delay.

The public should not have to depend on occasional media reports to understand the status of nine criminal investigations.

What do the Jabalpur betting cases actually reveal?

The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s orders dated August 11, 2026, are particularly relevant because they provide a more detailed account of five separate petitions filed by Sanpal seeking to quash criminal proceedings.

The cases include FIR Nos. 258/2022, 53/2024, 170/2022, 271/2022 and 270/2022.

These are separate proceedings and should not be combined into a single allegation. However, taken together, they reveal the range of betting-related allegations investigated by the Jabalpur police.

The IPL betting investigation: FIR No. 170/2022

This FIR was registered at Madan Mahal Police Station, Jabalpur.

According to the prosecution’s version recorded by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the police received information concerning alleged IPL betting activities on April 23, 2022.

During the investigation, Deepak Patel and Sunil Thakur were allegedly found involved in betting activities.

The prosecution subsequently alleged that Sanpal was the mastermind of the betting operation and that shell companies had been opened in his name and in the names of other individuals to undertake financial transactions and defraud the government.

The chargesheet included allegations under Section 4-A of the Public Gambling Act and Sections 109, 112, 114, 120-B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

These are serious allegations. They must be investigated through independently verifiable evidence, including corporate records, bank statements, electronic communications and financial transactions.

Sanpal disputed the allegations and sought quashing of the FIR. His defence challenged the reliability and admissibility of the material relied upon by the prosecution.

On August 11, 2026, the Madhya Pradesh High Court declined to quash the proceedings and left the disputed questions of evidence to be examined by the trial court.

The alleged betting network and cash recovery: FIR No. 258/2022

This FIR was registered at Omti Police Station.

The prosecution version recorded by the High Court states that on May 23, 2022, the police received information regarding individuals allegedly possessing money collected from illegal betting activities.

A raid was conducted near Chawla Restaurant.

Two co-accused, Sanjay Khatri and Murlidhar Khatri, were allegedly found in possession of ₹23,02,990 and mobile phones.

During the subsequent investigation, Sanpal’s name allegedly surfaced through the statements of the co-accused, and he was included in the chargesheet.

Sanpal challenged the proceedings, arguing that there was no direct recovery from him and that the prosecution lacked independent material establishing his involvement.

The High Court declined to terminate the criminal proceedings at that stage.

It specifically observed that the evidentiary value of the material collected, the alleged conspiracy and the relationship between the accused persons would have to be examined during trial.

The court did not convict Sanpal or determine his guilt.

The ₹47.50-lakh cash recovery investigation: FIR No. 270/2022

Another Jabalpur investigation originated from a raid conducted on May 28, 2022.

According to the prosecution’s case recorded in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the police allegedly recovered ₹47.50 lakh from co-accused Indrajeet Singh, who was suspected of concealing proceeds generated through betting activities.

During the investigation, the prosecution alleged that Sanpal was connected with the betting network.

A chargesheet was filed, and Sanpal was included as an accused.

He challenged the proceedings, disputing the alleged connection and the evidentiary basis of his implication.

The High Court declined to quash the proceedings, leaving the factual and evidentiary issues for the trial court.

The ₹23-lakh betting proceeds investigation: FIR No. 271/2022

Another case registered at Omti Police Station concerned the alleged concealment of betting proceeds.

The police allegedly recovered ₹23 lakh from two bags found at the premises of co-accused Ajeet Goga and Aakash Goga.

The investigation subsequently alleged a connection between Sanpal and the betting network.

As in the other cases, the defence disputed this connection and challenged the prosecution’s reliance on statements recorded during the investigation.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court refused to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the proceedings.

Importantly, the court clarified that its observations were confined to the question of quashing and that the trial court would have to decide the case independently on the evidence.

SatSport and SkyExchange: FIR No. 53/2024

Perhaps one of the more significant developments in the publicly accessible case records concerns the alleged use of SatSport and SkyExchange.

This FIR was registered at Civil Line Police Station, Jabalpur.

According to the prosecution’s case, on February 13, 2024, police received information that a person identified as Rohit Shivhare was allegedly facilitating cricket betting activities from a restaurant.

Three mobile phones were reportedly seized from him.

The High Court order records that betting-related applications and websites, including satsport.com and skyexchange, were found active on the seized devices.

During the subsequent investigation, the prosecution alleged that master IDs and betting operations were linked with other persons, including Sanpal.

A chargesheet was filed, and Sanpal was arrayed as an accused.

This case deserves particular investigative attention.

The presence of betting applications on a seized device does not, by itself, establish ownership or control of those platforms by another person. But the alleged master IDs, access credentials, user records, transaction histories and communications are precisely the kind of evidence that investigators should examine.

Who controlled the master IDs?

Who issued credentials to local operators?

Where were the betting balances maintained?

Which bank accounts, payment gateways, wallets or intermediaries were used?

Who received the commissions?

Who ultimately controlled the money?

These are not questions that should remain unanswered indefinitely.

The case should be examined using digital forensic evidence, verified subscriber information, device extraction, server records, financial trails and admissible evidence establishing the relationship between alleged operators and platform controllers.

On August 11, 2026, the Madhya Pradesh High Court rejected Sanpal’s petition seeking quashing of this case as well.

That order was not a conviction. It meant that the prosecution proceedings would continue and the evidentiary questions would be tested before the trial court.

Five attempts to quash proceedings: What happened on August 11?

An especially significant aspect of these cases is that Sanpal approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court through five separate petitions seeking to quash the criminal proceedings.

The five matters were decided on August 11, 2026.

The High Court declined to quash the proceedings in all five matters.

The court considered the arguments concerning the statements of co-accused persons, the alleged lack of direct recovery, the absence or disputed nature of electronic and financial evidence, the alleged betting network and the petitioner’s assertion that he was outside India during the relevant period.

The court held that these factual and evidentiary issues were matters for consideration during trial and that it would not conduct a mini-trial while exercising its inherent jurisdiction.

This is a significant procedural development.

The criminal proceedings were not terminated at the threshold. The prosecution will have to establish its allegations through admissible evidence, and Sanpal will have the opportunity to defend himself.

The outcome should not be exaggerated in either direction.

A dismissed quashing petition does not make an accused guilty. Equally, an accused cannot treat the rejection of a quashing petition as though the underlying criminal case has disappeared.

The appropriate next step is an efficient and transparent trial.

The reported ₹1,000-crore allegation: What is actually on record?

Another controversy surfaced in June 2026 when Jabalpur-based complainant Saurabh Bawariya reportedly submitted a representation to the District Collector and Superintendent of Police seeking an Enforcement Directorate investigation into Sanpal.

The representation alleged that approximately ₹1,000 crore had been generated through SatSport and IPL betting activities and that proceeds had been routed through shell companies.

It reportedly sought investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and action under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act.

The complainant’s lawyer also told NDTV that a Public Interest Litigation had been filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

These claims require careful treatment.

A representation submitted to government authorities is not a chargesheet, an ED finding or a judicial determination.

In its May 6, 2026 order, the Delhi High Court specifically examined publications making allegations that Sanpal had laundered ₹1,000 crore through 13 shell companies and was connected with the Mahadev betting scandal.

The court observed that these claims found no mention in the referenced FIRs or any judicial determination.

This observation cannot be ignored.

It means that journalists and investigators must distinguish the actual contents of the police records from allegations made by complainants or repeated in media publications.

The correct investigative exercise is to obtain the representation, establish whether an FIR or formal investigation followed, verify the alleged corporate entities and trace any actual financial transactions.

A figure of ₹1,000 crore is substantial enough to demand documentary scrutiny. It is not a substitute for documentary proof.

The UAE financial freeze: An international question that deserves clarification

The controversy surrounding Sanpal did not remain confined to India.

In August 2026, NDTV and other publications reported that the UAE Financial Intelligence Unit had issued a temporary asset-freezing direction dated July 13, 2026, concerning Sanpal, his wife Tabinda and certain associated entities.

According to the reported notice, financial institutions, banks and virtual asset service providers in the UAE were directed to freeze specified funds, accounts, deposits and investments and stop withdrawals and transfers.

The entities named in the reporting included:

ANAX Capital Asset Management Company, ANAX Capital Financial Markets LLC, ANAX Holding FZCO and SSB Bazaar General Trading LLC.

The reported order was issued under the UAE’s Decretal Federal Law No. 10 of 2025, concerning anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism and proliferation financing.

The reporting described the initial freeze as a 30-day measure, potentially subject to extension through the applicable legal process.

There is, however, an important qualification.

NDTV reported that the notice had been accessed by its journalists, but also recorded that Sanpal’s counsel, Advocate Kaushal Jeet Kait, said the reported freeze required verification because no investigative or enforcement authority had publicly announced it.

No public confirmation of an extension beyond the initial reported period has been independently established in the material reviewed for this article.

Consequently, it would be incorrect to assert that the UAE has conclusively established money laundering by Sanpal.

Nevertheless, a reported financial intelligence action involving multiple businesses and financial accounts is a legitimate subject for public-interest questions.

What transactions prompted the reported direction?

Was the source of funds examined?

Were any Indian-origin transactions identified?

Were the named corporate entities connected with the Indian betting investigations?

Did Indian agencies submit information or requests for assistance?

Has the Indian government sought confirmation from the UAE authorities?

Have the relevant financial records been shared through lawful international cooperation?

These are questions that deserve official answers, not speculative headlines.

A temporary financial freeze is a precautionary investigative measure. It is not a criminal conviction. But where such a measure is reported, the relevant agencies should establish the facts and clarify whether any connection with Indian criminal investigations exists.

Vanuatu nationality and international jurisdiction: Questions requiring official verification

The NDTV report also stated that the UAE FIU notice identified Sanpal’s nationality as Vanuatu and that sources had confirmed he also held an Indian passport.

His lawyer declined to comment on the nationality question.

The report further stated that his Indian passport had been issued in Dubai in 2018 and that he held a ten-year UAE Golden Visa issued in 2021.

These reported details raise questions that should be addressed through authenticated immigration and nationality records rather than assumptions.

The Ministry of External Affairs, Bureau of Immigration and other competent authorities should establish the applicable nationality and travel-document position through lawful verification.

The existence of a foreign residence, visa or nationality does not itself establish wrongdoing. But international residence and business structures should not become obstacles to lawful investigation.

The central issue: Is the investigation moving at the speed that the allegations demand?

The Jabalpur investigations date back to 2022, with another FIR registered in 2024.

The Delhi High Court record establishes that a Look Out Circular was opened at the request of the Jabalpur Superintendent of Police in August 2022.

The same body of public material records that Sanpal’s counsel stated he had secured bail in eight of the nine reported criminal cases, with the remaining matter involving a bailable offence.

The proceedings before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in August 2026 demonstrate that the criminal cases have not simply vanished. The High Court declined to quash five proceedings and directed, in substance, that the disputed evidentiary issues be resolved through the criminal process.

So what is happening now?

Have the trial courts commenced substantive evidence?

Have all the chargesheets been filed in the nine reported cases?

Have the investigating officers completed the examination of electronic records?

Have the master IDs, betting panels and financial beneficiaries been identified?

Have the relevant bank accounts been traced to their beneficial owners?

Have the original KYC records been verified?

Have the records of SatSport and SkyExchange been obtained from the relevant service providers?

Have the identities of the panel operators and financial intermediaries been established?

Has the reported international financial investigation produced any authenticated evidence relevant to the Indian cases?

Are the investigating agencies regularly reporting compliance with the Look Out Circular?

Have the courts been provided with a consolidated status report identifying the outstanding investigative steps and trial progress?

These questions deserve answers from the authorities.

Simply registering FIRs, filing chargesheets and then allowing proceedings to remain unresolved for years cannot be the ultimate objective of a criminal justice system.

Why the government must act without fear or favour

The Chandrakar extradition establishes an important benchmark.

Indian investigative agencies must demonstrate that they can pursue alleged financial and betting networks beyond national borders, identify those who control the operations and trace the financial benefits.

That benchmark should apply uniformly.

There should be no special category of accused for whom the law becomes slower because of international business contacts, financial resources, social visibility or an expensive overseas lifestyle.

At the same time, there should be no presumption of guilt merely because a person is wealthy, operates from Dubai or appears on a television programme.

The appropriate standard is evidence.

Where sufficient evidence exists, agencies must pursue the investigation to its logical conclusion. Where evidence does not exist, the proceedings must be dealt with according to law.

The investigation must not be reduced to selective publicity, occasional raids or endless procedural correspondence.

In the Jabalpur cases, the authorities should undertake a coordinated review of all nine reported proceedings, identify overlapping evidence, eliminate duplication and ensure that every material financial transaction is traced.

The police should also seek lawful cooperation from UAE authorities wherever necessary, including authenticated banking records, corporate ownership details, payment-service information and other relevant evidence.

The Enforcement Directorate must independently assess whether the material meets the statutory requirements for a money-laundering investigation. A separate representation or an allegation of a large transaction cannot, by itself, establish a case under the PMLA.

The trial courts should consider effective case-management directions, fixed schedules for evidence and strict scrutiny of unnecessary adjournments.

The objective must be a fair, independent and speedy trial.

When is Satish Sanpal going to be arrested?

The question requires a legally accurate answer.

The existence of an LOC and multiple criminal cases does not automatically mean that an individual must be arrested irrespective of bail orders or the procedural position of each case.

The publicly available judicial record indicates that Sanpal had obtained bail in eight of the nine criminal cases, according to his counsel’s submissions recorded in the Delhi High Court’s May 6 order. The remaining case was described as bailable.

Accordingly, the more pressing questions are whether all appearance requirements are being complied with, whether the LOC remains operational, whether any outstanding warrant or judicial direction exists and whether the investigating agencies are pursuing the remaining investigative steps.

The authorities must clarify these matters.

If custody is legally necessary and supported by the applicable criminal procedure, the agencies must pursue it through lawful means. If bail governs a particular case, the conditions of bail and appearance must be enforced.

The public is entitled to know why investigations dating back to 2022 have not reached a final judicial conclusion and what concrete steps are being taken to bring them to one.

The point is not to demand an arrest for the sake of headlines. It is to demand accountability from institutions responsible for investigating alleged illegal betting operations.

A demand for faster investigations, international cooperation and time-bound trials

The Chandrakar extradition must become an example of effective international investigative cooperation.

The following steps deserve priority in the Sanpal-related investigations:

First, the Jabalpur police should publish or place before the competent court a consolidated status report covering all nine reported cases, including the FIR numbers, offences, accused persons, chargesheet status, pending forensic examinations and the current stage of trial.

Second, the investigators should undertake a comprehensive digital-forensic examination of the seized devices and all lawfully obtained records associated with the alleged SatSport and SkyExchange operations. This should include master IDs, panel credentials, access logs, device identifiers, communications and the financial records connected with the platforms.

Third, all relevant bank accounts, payment gateways, merchant accounts and beneficial ownership structures should be examined to establish whether the alleged betting proceeds were collected, layered or transferred through other persons or entities.

Fourth, where evidence indicates overseas financial movements, Indian agencies should seek assistance through the appropriate international legal and financial intelligence cooperation channels.

Fifth, the investigating agencies should clarify the actual status of the reported UAE FIU direction. If a formal investigation or financial restriction is confirmed, any relevant evidence should be obtained through lawful procedures and independently examined.

Sixth, the competent courts should ensure that the pending criminal trials are not frustrated by avoidable adjournments, procedural delays or prolonged inaction.

Finally, wherever evidence is insufficient, the agencies must acknowledge that fact. Wherever evidence is sufficient, prosecution must proceed without fear or favour.

Chandrakar’s return should not become another headline that disappears

India has spent years investigating the Mahadev betting network. Chandrakar’s extradition from Oman is an important development, but the real success of the operation will be measured by what follows: financial recovery, admissible evidence, accountability of the actual beneficiaries and convictions where guilt is established.

The wider ecosystem cannot be left untouched.

The separate Jabalpur cases involving Satish Sanpal deserve the same investigative seriousness, professional scrutiny and judicial efficiency.

The reported nine criminal cases, the Look Out Circular, the gambling-related chargesheets, the SatSport and SkyExchange allegations and the five unsuccessful quashing petitions present a sufficiently serious body of proceedings to warrant a clear public explanation of their present status.

However, the Mahadev investigation and the Sanpal-related proceedings must remain legally distinct unless investigators produce admissible material establishing a connection.

There is no justification for manufacturing that connection through insinuation. Equally, there is no justification for allowing properly documented criminal investigations to remain unresolved indefinitely.

A businessman may possess a Burj Khalifa residence, international business interests, luxury cars, media visibility and substantial financial resources. None of those things proves criminality.

But none of them should provide immunity from the ordinary demands of criminal investigation either.

The Indian justice system must demonstrate that the law does not become slower when an investigation crosses borders, reaches financially powerful individuals or encounters sophisticated corporate structures.

Saurabh Chandrakar has been brought back from Oman. The focus must now shift to completing the Mahadev investigation and ensuring accountability across the entire alleged network.

And for the separate Jabalpur betting cases, the question remains straightforward:

How much longer will the public have to wait for a transparent investigation, a proper judicial trial and a definitive outcome?

The agencies must provide answers. The courts must ensure timely proceedings. And the public must be able to see that the law is being applied equally, consistently and without fear or favour.

LEGAL DISCLAIMER AND EDITORIAL CLARIFICATION

This report is based on publicly accessible court orders, government statements, investigative agency communications and published media reports available as of November 3, 2026.

All criminal allegations discussed in this report must be treated strictly as allegations unless and until established through legally admissible evidence and a competent judicial determination.

No court of law has convicted Satish Sanpal in the criminal proceedings discussed in this report, based on the public judicial record reviewed for this publication. The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s dismissal of five petitions seeking quashing of criminal proceedings on August 11, 2026, does not constitute a finding of guilt or a conviction. The Court expressly left the disputed factual and evidentiary questions for consideration by the respective trial courts.

Sanpal’s bail status and the reported Look Out Circular must also be understood in their correct legal context. Neither the registration of an FIR nor the opening of an LOC establishes guilt or substitutes for a judicial finding.

The reported UAE Financial Intelligence Unit asset-freezing direction has not been presented here as proof of money laundering. The initial order was reported by media organisations, and Sanpal’s counsel publicly questioned its verification. Its subsequent status and any extension require official confirmation.

No finding by a competent court or verified investigative record reviewed for this report establishes that Satish Sanpal participated in, controlled, financed or was otherwise involved in the Mahadev Online Book betting syndicate. The juxtaposition of the two investigations is not an allegation that the two individuals operated together.

Any reference to named individuals, companies, betting platforms or financial transactions is subject to the original records and the applicable legal proceedings. All persons named are entitled to the presumption of innocence and a fair opportunity to defend themselves.

This report is published in the public interest, with the objective of encouraging transparent investigations, international cooperation, accountability and expeditious judicial proceedings. Nothing herein should be interpreted as a declaration of criminal guilt.