Vijay Mallya: What options do the Indian govt, ED have to bring him back?

With Mallya saying he is unlikely to return from the UK of his own volition any time soon, the govt only has limited options to move against the businessman

If beleaguered liquor baron Vijay Mallya fails to appear before the Enforcement Directorate (ED) this week, it will issue a second summons to him, an ED official told Business Standard.

Mallya has been asked to present himself before the ED on March 18; however, he is yet to confirm when he will join the probe under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). On Sunday, Mallya told the Sunday Guardian that he is not inclined to return to India anytime soon, given the circumstances in which he has been branded a ‘criminal’.
 
"(The) Chances are high that he would not be able to meet his first date. Though he (Mallya) has the option to select his own date. If he wants any changes, we will do the needful," said an ED official. 

 

“However, it is mandatory for Mallya to appear in person before the ED. If he fails or denies (to appear), then we will proceed against him under the law,” this official told Business Standard. As is standard practice at the agency, officials declined to be identified.
 
Under the prescribed law, if an individual does not comply with summons issued, the ED can move a court to obtain a non-bailable warrant (NBW) against the person, said a government lawyer, who also did not wish to be named. A Hyderabad court has already issued a non-bailable arrest warrant for Mallya.

The most high-profile 'absconder' before the Mallya saga broke, of course, has been Lalit Modi, the progenitor of the Indian Premier League T-20 cricket tournament. Like Mallya, Modi also stands accused of money laundering in connection with overseas broadcast rights for the tournament. A Mumbai court earlier this month approved extradition proceedings against Modi. 

Like Mallya, though, Modi too has alleged a witch-hunt against him, and has stayed away from India

There are other options too, which could be used in case of non-compliance.
 
The enforcement agency can request global police agency Interpol to issue an ‘Interpol notice’ against an individual if that person is outside the country. But this can be only applicable to the person against whom a local court has issued a NBW. 

 
An Interpol notice is an international alert used by police to communicate information about crimes, criminals and threats to their counterparts around the world. These alerts are circulated to all member states at the request of a member or an authorised international entity. The information disseminated via notices concerns individuals wanted for ‘serious crimes, possible threats, prison escapes and criminals'.
 
Apart from these, the government can also utilise its diplomatic power. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) can opt for an 'extradition request' against Mallya. The decision can be taken under the provisions of the extradition treaty existing between India and the United Kingdom. Extradition is the legal process that involves transfer of a suspected or convicted criminal by a country to another.

 
The ED can also send Letter Rogatory (LR) too, but that can only help it get details of his overseas bank accounts and assets. A LR is a formal request from a court to a foreign court for some type of judicial assistance. The LR process typically take 6-8 months.
 
Meanwhile, the ED has initiated the process of shortlisting Mallya's overseas properties; it is likely to attach his assets to bar him from any kind of transactions.
 
Mallya, who is facing legal proceedings for alleged loan defaults by his group that have ballooned to debt of over Rs 9,000 crore, has lashed out against what he described in a tweet as a ‘media trial’, and has reiterated that he will comply with Indian laws. “I am an international businessman. I travel to and from India frequently. I did not flee from India and neither am I an absconder. Rubbish,” Mallya tweeted. He further said: “As an Indian MP I fully respect and will comply with the law of the land. Our judicial system is sound and respected. But no trial by media.”