In a significant legal development, a United Kingdom court has delivered a substantial setback to fugitive diamond merchant Mehul Choksi, rejecting his allegations of abduction by Indian operatives while imposing a hefty financial requirement for his ongoing lawsuit.
Justice Mansfield presiding over the case found Choksi’s claims of being forcibly taken from Antigua in 2021 notably lacking in substantive evidence. The court determined that the diamantaire, who obtained Antiguan and Barbudan citizenship through the nation’s investment program, failed to provide concrete proof supporting his assertion that Indian agents orchestrated his kidnapping.
The judicial assessment highlighted critical evidentiary shortcomings in Choksi’s narrative. Notably, the court observed that the allegations relied predominantly on circumstantial elements without independent witness corroboration. “Unsurprisingly, there is no witness evidence as to the kidnapping and assault of the Claimant, other than that of the Claimant himself,” Justice Mansfield noted in the ruling.
While acknowledging that circumstantial evidence can occasionally prove compelling in conspiracy litigation, the court maintained that at this preliminary stage, without comprehensive evidentiary examination, the strength of such claims remained difficult to properly evaluate.
Choksi’s legal representation, led by London-based attorney Mr. Fitzgerald KC, vigorously argued that requiring security for costs would constitute an injustice given the alleged conspiracy involving abduction, torture, and forced rendition to India. These arguments ultimately failed to persuade the judicial authority.
The current proceedings stem from a May 2024 lawsuit filed by Choksi against multiple parties including the Government of India, four non-resident Indians, and a Hungarian national. The suit alleges physical assault and psychological harassment following his purported abduction from Antigua and Barbuda and subsequent transportation by vessel to Dominica.
Evidentiary materials presented by Choksi’s team included an Antiguan police report compiled by Inspector Adonis Henry in June 2021 and a witness statement from private investigator Oliver Laurence, retained by Choksi’s family. The court however noted that both documents heavily depended on secondary accounts and reviewed documentation rather than firsthand testimonial evidence.
The ruling further referenced prior European judicial decisions, noting that both the Antwerp Court and the Court of Cassation had previously reached similar conclusions regarding the lack of evidence supporting claims of Indian government involvement in Choksi’s alleged abduction.
With the security for costs order now established, Choksi faces a considerable financial obstacle as litigation continues in the UK judicial system. Separate legal proceedings filed by Choksi against the Antiguan government regarding alleged investigative collusion remain pending resolution.