Washington: The Biden administration has asked a federal court in Los Angeles to extradite Canadian businessman Tahawwur Rana, who is of Pakistani descent, to India, where he is wanted for his role in the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks.
Rana, 59, has been declared a fugitive by India, where he is facing multiple criminal charges for his role in the 2008 Mumbai terror attack that killed 166 people, including six Americans. On June 10, 2020, he was arrested again in Los Angeles in response to an extradition request from India.
The US government argued in a submission to the US District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles that India’s extradition request contained sufficient evidence of probable cause on each criminal charge for which India seeks Rana’s extradition.
“It is found that all the requirements for certification of extradition have been fulfilled, the court certifies the extradition to the Secretary of State of Tahawwur Hussain Rana and sends him to custody,” for a draft order proposed by US attorneys in submission to the court last week.
“Based on the evidence presented by India, Rana permitted the fraud against the Government of India through creation and production of forged documents. The motive behind such fraud is irrelevant under the Indian criminal provisions,” the facts in the document proposed conclusion and title. conclusion of the law.
Authorities in India allege that Rana, along with his childhood friend David Coleman Headley, conspired to aid the Pakistani terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), or Army of the Good, in the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks.
“In any event, Rana knowingly allowed Headley to obtain business visas and cover, which he required to conduct terrorism-related surveillance operations in India, ultimately leading to the three-day terror attacks in Mumbai. Accordingly, the court found that it is probable because Rana conspired to forge a document with the intention of fraud and used a forged document as genuine in violation of IPC 120B, 468 and 471.”
“Rana knew that Headley was involved in Lashkar-e-Taiba, and by assisting Headley and providing a cover for his activities, he was supporting the terrorist organization and its associates. Rana knew about Headley’s meetings. What was discussed, and the plan for the attacks, including some of the targets. Furthermore, it was anticipated that these attacks would result in death, injury and destruction of property.”
“Accordingly, this Court found that there is probable cause that Rana committed the offenses of conspiracy to commit a terroristic act, in contravention of IPC 120B and UAPA 16, and conspired to commit a terroristic act in contravention of UAPA 18. The court further observed that under the principle of agency or the abetment principle (as contemplated by UAPA 16), the probable cause that Rana committed the original offense of the commission of a terroristic act in violation of UAPA 16. lawyer.
As the object of the alleged criminal conspiracy, India has alleged forgery for the purpose of fraud in violation of IPC 468. As an object of alleged criminal conspiracy, India has also alleged the offense of passing a forged document or electronic record as genuine. , in contravention of IPC 471.
According to the document, evidence suggests that Rana and Headley conspired to give false information on several documents submitted to the Indian government.
“In 2006 and 2007, Rana conspired with Headley to include false information on Indian government documents, so that Headley could obtain a business visa (one-year and five-year multiple entry) as an alleged employee of Rana’s business. On both occasions, Rana reviewed Headley’s applications and failed to correct information that Rana knew was false.”
“Rana also asked the Immigration Law Center to submit the application to the Indian Consulate through an unsuspecting business partner.” Rana also allowed his company to apply to the Reserve Bank of India, falsely claiming that he wanted to open an office in Mumbai with Headley as the ‘head of the office’.
On the other hand, Rana’s lawyers are opposing extradition in their proposed draft order.
“The Court found that the Government did not satisfy the requirement of Article 9(3)(c) of the Treaty that the request for extradition must be supported by information that would justify the person’s commitment to trial if the offense was committed In the requested state,” it said.
Therefore extradition is denied,” says Rana, “proposed findings of facts and findings of law.” Both the documents were presented before the court on July 15.
.