The Antwerp Court of Appeal has given a positive advice to the Belgian government to clear fugitive diamantaire Mehul Choksi’s extradition on six of the seven counts of alleged charges he is facing in India.
In its advice to the Belgian government on April 3, the ‘kamer van inbeschuldiging’ (chamber of accusation) of The Antwerp Court of Appeal has said that all the alleged crimes for which Choksi is wanted in India -- criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust, forgery or fraud, forgery of accounts, obtaining illegal gains by an official or embezzlement, and criminal misconduct -- are also punishable by Belgian Law fulfilling the condition of reciprocity.
It, however, gave a negative advice on the count of “tampering or destroying of evidence”, which is not punishable in Belgium, Ken Witpas, Advocaat-Generaal, Antwerp, told PTI.
According to the procedure in Belgium, the confidential advice has been sent to the government, which will now decide on India’s extradition request.
Court observations and legal position
In its advice, the Antwerp Court of Appeal has said there is no immediate and direct proof that the “Indian government had any involvement” in Choksi’s alleged abduction from Antigua and Barbuda in 2021, he said.
If any objective elements would yet emerge out of the ongoing investigations in Antigua or the UK concerning this matter, elements that could link the Indian government to this abduction, the risk of being tortured, “to the opinion of the court, couldn’t be excluded,” Witpas said.
It said that there is an applicable legal base for extradition between the Kingdom of Belgium and India, he said.
The Court of Appeal also said the crime “tampering or destroying of evidence” is not punishable by Belgian Law and is therefore excluded as a possible ground for extradition.
The court held that crimes for which Choksi is under suspicion is not restricted or limited by statutory limits, neither by Belgian nor by Indian Law, and that these crimes can neither be considered as political, military, nor as an excluded fiscal offence.
It said there are no reasons to believe that Choksi will be prosecuted or potentially punished in India based solely on grounds of his race, beliefs, nationality, or political preferences, or that his position on similar grounds will be affected unfavourably.
It advised that elements raised by the defence regarding risks of denial of Law, fair trial, torture or inhumane treatment (such as prison circumstances) were considered as not made plausible by the defence.
Legal history and proceedings
In December last year, Belgium’s supreme court -- the Court of Cassation -- had rejected Choksi’s appeal challenging his extradition to India in connection with Rs 13,000 crore alleged Punjab National Bank loan fraud, authorities in that country said.
India sent an extradition request to Belgium on August 27, 2024, based on arrest warrants issued by the special court in Mumbai.
The public prosecutor at the Court of First Instance in Antwerp, Division Turnhout, had initiated an action on November 25, 2024, seeking the enforcement of arrest warrants issued by the Mumbai court.
The pre-trial chamber of the Antwerp District Court, Turnhout Division, in its order dated November 29, 2024, had held that the arrest warrants against Choksi issued by the Mumbai court were enforceable, except for the order related to “causing the disappearance of evidence of the crime”.
Appeal rejected, assurances noted
When Choksi appealed against this verdict in the Antwerp Court of Appeals, it had rejected his claims that he personally faces a real, present and serious risk of being subjected to flagrant denial of justice, torture or inhuman and degrading treatment in India.
India has given a number of assurances to Belgium about Choksi’s safety, the charges that he would be tried in India, prison arrangements, human rights and medical needs.
The Court of Appeals had ruled that 66-year-old Choksi faces “no risk” of being denied a fair trial or subjected to ill-treatment if he is extradited to India.
Dismissing Choksi’s appeal against the district court, the Court of Appeals had held that the businessman failed to provide “concretely plausible” evidence of a “genuine risk” of torture or denial of justice.
Published on April 8, 2026