The Antwerp Court of Appeal has recommended that the Belgian government proceed with the extradition of fugitive businessman Mehul Choksi to India, clearing the way for him to face trial on multiple criminal charges. The court’s advisory opinion, issued on April 3, signals a significant legal victory for Indian authorities in their long-standing effort to bring the diamantaire back to face justice.
The recommendation focuses on six of the seven counts against Choksi, confirming that the alleged crimes—including criminal conspiracy, forgery, and embezzlement—meet the legal requirements of reciprocity under Belgian law. In other words the acts Choksi is accused of in India are similarly punishable in Belgium, a critical prerequisite for international extradition.
The 66-year-old Choksi is wanted in connection with a massive Punjab National Bank loan fraud case involving approximately Rs 13,000 crore. After years of evading capture across multiple jurisdictions, the legal proceedings in Belgium now move into the final executive phase, as the decision to extradite ultimately rests with the Belgian government.
Legal Reciprocity and the ‘Chamber of Accusation’
The ‘kamer van inbeschuldiging’ (chamber of accusation) of the Antwerp Court of Appeal scrutinized the specific charges leveled by India to ensure they were not political or military in nature, nor excluded fiscal offenses. The court determined that the following charges are eligible for extradition:
- Criminal conspiracy
- Criminal breach of trust
- Forgery or fraud
- Forgery of accounts
- Obtaining illegal gains by an official or embezzlement
- Criminal misconduct
However, the court provided a negative advice on one specific count: the “tampering or destroying of evidence.” According to Ken Witpas, Advocaat-Generaal in Antwerp, this specific offense is not punishable under Belgian law and therefore cannot serve as a legal ground for extradition.
The Timeline of Legal Proceedings
The path to this recommendation has been a complex series of filings and appeals spanning several months. The process accelerated in late 2024 following formal requests from the Indian government.
| Date | Legal Action/Event |
|---|---|
| August 27, 2024 | India submits formal extradition request based on Mumbai court warrants. |
| November 25, 2024 | Public prosecutor in Antwerp initiates action to enforce warrants. |
| November 29, 2024 | Antwerp District Court rules warrants are enforceable (except for evidence tampering). |
| December 2024 | Belgium’s Court of Cassation rejects Choksi’s appeal against extradition. |
| April 3, 2025 | Antwerp Court of Appeal advises government to clear extradition. |
Addressing Claims of Human Rights Risks
A central pillar of Choksi’s defense was the claim that he would face a “flagrant denial of justice” or be subjected to torture and inhumane treatment upon his return to India. The defense specifically pointed to Choksi’s alleged abduction from Antigua and Barbuda in 2021, suggesting Indian government involvement.
The Court of Appeal dismissed these arguments, stating that the defense failed to provide “concretely plausible” evidence of a genuine risk. The court noted there was no immediate or direct proof that the Indian government was involved in the 2021 incident. However, the court did abandon a narrow window open, stating that if objective evidence emerges from ongoing investigations in the UK or Antigua linking the Indian government to the abduction, the risk of torture “couldn’t be excluded.”
To mitigate these concerns, India provided several formal assurances to the Belgian authorities. These guarantees cover Choksi’s physical safety, the assurance of a fair trial, specific prison arrangements, and the provision for his medical needs while in custody.
What This Means for the Case
The Antwerp Court’s ruling is an advisory opinion, not a final mandate. In the Belgian legal system, the judiciary provides the legal framework and verification of the charges, but the final decision to hand over a fugitive is an administrative act performed by the government. This ensures that diplomatic and political considerations are balanced with legal requirements.
For the Indian government, this is a critical step in closing a loophole that allowed Choksi to remain a fugitive for years. The case is not just about the recovery of funds, but about the precedent for extraditing high-profile financial offenders from European soil. The court’s finding that there are no reasons to believe Choksi would be targeted based on race, belief, nationality, or political preference removes one of the most common hurdles in international extradition law.
Disclaimer: This report is based on court proceedings and legal advisories and is intended for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice.
The next critical checkpoint is the formal decision by the Belgian government to accept the court’s advice and execute the extradition request. Once the government clears the request, the logistical arrangements for Choksi’s transfer to India will be finalized.
We invite our readers to share their thoughts on this development in the comments below. For more updates on international legal battles, follow our coverage.
