London-based Indian businessman loses extradition case on July 4

Syed’s Western Advisory Group (WAG) was based in Switzerland and Bahrain in swanky premises which tremendously impressed those who approached him for loans. A very professional website complemented his impressive offices, but Switzerland claims that in reality Syed had set up a bogus group of companies. He is accused of promising large loans when it was difficult to get one during a period of global financial crisis, and despite knowing that he was not in a position to honour those loans.

However, promising that his Switzerland-based companies could grant substantial loans in the region of 30-80 million Swiss Franc, (£26-70 million) he demanded advance fees from the victims to pay towards credit assessments, registration fees and insurance costs. These advance fees were paid into bank accounts in Switzerland and Bahrain. The court was told that Syed was often in Switzerland between May 2010 and September 2011 but “fled the country once his criminal activity was revealed.”

The issue of the alleged trial in Bahrain took up a considerable amount of court’s time as it was contended that it would be against natural justice for Syed to face the same set of charges in Switzerland. Switzerland issued a domestic arrest warrant against Syed in 2012 despite knowing that Syed was in Bahrain. Syed’s lawyer and Credit Suisse where he had an account knew his address in Bahrain which remained the same since 2008. The prosecutor in Switzerland got Syed’s address in Bahrain from Credit Suisse who reported matters in relation to WAG.

Switzerland seized some assets belonging to Syed and approached Bahrain with details of the alleged fraud. In his evidence Syed told the Westminster Magistrates’ court that he was twice put on a travel ban in Bahrain which he complied and was not convicted of any offence. The public prosecutor in Bahrain did not proceed with the case because there was insufficient evidence. However, Judge John McGarva ruled that the charges against Syed in Bahrain were not dismissed after a court trial. “It is clear that the requested person did not have a trial in Bahrain, he was not acquitted or found guilty. That said there was clearly evidence gathering exercise which included the requested person being interrogated,” concluded the judge.

The court, however, did not agree with Switzerland’s characterisation that Syed was a fugitive. “I have no evidence that he was asked to attend Switzerland for questioning and whilst it appears he lost touch with his Swiss lawyer, I am unable to conclude that he was trying to avoid the proceedings.”

The issue of long delay in the case was also flagged by Syed whose legal team pointed out that the offence is alleged to have happened over 12 years ago, before the extradition request was made to the UK. Besides, it was also claimed that removing Syed would be oppressive as his children were in education in the UK and that he had made his home in London. The judge while agreeing that there was a significant delay in the case reasoned that it was not out of the ordinary in a substantial case of fraud as this.

“He [Syed] has come simply because his adult children want to be educated here. He has been here a relatively short time before the extradition request was made. The requested person will have to endure a repeat of the same investigation as in Bahrain but given the allegations relate to a £25 million fraud involving 23 victims, it cannot be said to be oppressive for him to be extradited.”

After less than 20 listings, and in just over seven months since the arrest, district judge John McGarva concluded there were no bars to Syed’s extradition. This swift and quick decision by the court was possible because, unlike requests for extradition from India, Switzerland does not require to establish a prima facie case against a requested person in the UK.

In the case of Nirav Modi and Vijay Mallya, it took close to two years for the decision to come from the Westminster Magistrates’ Court. This was because the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) representing India had to convince the court that the requested persons had a case to answer which meant not just a simple recital of the allegations they faced, but also details of the evidence that pointed to their involvement. Both were complex fraud charges and thus required lengthy submissions by the CPS, which were in turn countered by the defence barristers.

Like Modi and Mallya, Syed, too, has the right to file an appeal in the high court; so despite the defeat in the Westminster Magistrates’ court he will remain in the UK till the appeal is heard. According to the procedure the judge has sent the case to the Home Secretary and once she makes the order, Syed will have to lodge an appeal in the high court within 14 days.

Despite losing the extradition battle in the UK courts, Modi and Mallya continue to be in the UK as they are believed to have made asylum requests to the UK home office. These are confidential proceedings and can take years before a final decision is reached and till then they cannot be removed.