The extradition hearing of Vijay Mallya is set to continue on April 27, as a session on the admissibility of evidence concluded with the judge indicating that at least some prosecution evidence presented so far would be excluded, though the decision in part would also depend on further details requested by her from the prosecution, on the provenance of material presented. While the judge sought further details, particularly around the issue of a conspiracy with the bankers over the disbursal of the loan, she described as “blindingly obvious” the prosecution’s contention about the bank not following its own rules when it came to lending decisions relating to Mr. Mallya.
Friday’s session marked the conclusion of arguments around the admissibility of prosecution evidence that commenced in January, with the defence barrister Clare Montgomery, attacking the structure of the prosecution’s case, which she said rested on police statements that didn’t have underlying material, documents with “no evidence of provenance,” and whose relevance one had to judge by inference from 161 witness statements, which rested on “expo facto” analysis that wouldn’t meet criteria of admissibility in a UK court. “There is a mass of evidence but once you break it all out the question is: Is this admissible? The answer is none of it,” concluded Montgomery.
Later she attacked the government’s use of 161 witness statements, some of which included identical sections, and which would not be relied upon in the courts in India should it come to trial there, as a “puff” that had been brought before the court. “It’s a here today gone tomorrow case quite contrary to the context of the [bilateral extradition] treaty.”
“It’s like a jigsaw puzzle,” said Judge Emma Arbuthnot of the case, as she said there were “certainly signs” the bank had gone against their own guidelines when it came to sanctioning the loan to Mr. Mallya. She, however, sought further details on the origin of documents included in the prosecution’s case. “I will invite the Indian authorities to re-explain their position with page numbers. If it was a conspiracy involving Mr. [Yogesh] Agarwal – chairman of the bank – it would be useful to have some page numbers,” she told the court. “This is all about detail.” She also sought confirmation of the provenance of emails that form part of the prosecution’s case.
Accusations that a consortium of banks including IDBI bent rules to disburse loans to Mr. Mallya that he never intended to repay, form part of the prosecution’s case as it attempts to extradite Mr. Mallya on the grounds of fraud and money laundering.
In a detailed session, prosecution barrister Mark Summers, sought to demolish the challenges to their case made by the defence, including through its attempt to exercise legal professional privilege, in email exchanges referred to by the prosecution. Summers challenged the defence’s contention that the exchanges simply reflected acceptable legal advice rather than the “genesis of falsities.” “The suggestion advanced before you that these emails are incapable of being read as dishonest is one the government vehemently takes issue with…” He also challenged the defence’s attack on the use of hearsay evidence.