Fugitive economic offender threshold: subsisting warrant and prima facie evidence can sustain declaration under the 2018 Act.

Under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018, a warrant in relation to a scheduled offence remains effective where the accused has not been produced before the Indian court, even if execution occurred abroad and the person was later released on bail there. The Delhi HC also treated the Rs. 100 crores threshold as a jurisdictional fact capable of prima facie satisfaction from composite material, including the prosecution complaint, departmental communications, asset annexures, statements and the later assessment order. The differing valuations across proceedings did not defeat the statutory threshold. The commentary notes that the declaration as a fugitive economic offender was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the non-bailable warrant issued in relation to the scheduled offence continued to satisfy the statutory requirement for declaration as a fugitive economic offender. (ii) Whether the material before the authority established, on a prima facie basis, that the value involved in the scheduled offence was Rs. 100 crores or more.

Issue (i): Whether the non-bailable warrant issued in relation to the scheduled offence continued to satisfy the statutory requirement for declaration as a fugitive economic offender.

Analysis: The statutory scheme requires a warrant of arrest in relation to a scheduled offence and refusal to return to India to face prosecution. The warrant issued by the Special Court was relied upon in the extradition proceedings, but the appellant was never produced before the Indian court and continued to remain abroad. The execution of the warrant in a foreign jurisdiction did not extinguish its effect for the purposes of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018, because the object of the warrant under the Act is to secure the accused's presence before the Indian court. A warrant is not treated as spent merely because the person was arrested abroad and later released on bail there.

Conclusion: The requirement of a subsisting warrant was satisfied, and this issue was decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the material before the authority established, on a prima facie basis, that the value involved in the scheduled offence was Rs. 100 crores or more.

Analysis: The statutory threshold under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018 is a jurisdictional fact, and the authority must have reasons to believe based on material in possession. The record included the prosecution complaint under the Black Money Act, the communication from the Income Tax Department, the annexures listing foreign and domestic assets, the petitioner's statements, and the chartered accountant's statement. The letter of 09.07.2019 was not treated as the sole basis; it formed part of a composite evidentiary foundation. The subsequent assessment order quantified the undisclosed foreign income and assets at about Rs. 655 crores and the tax liability at about Rs. 196 crores, which reinforced the prima facie satisfaction already recorded. The varying valuations across proceedings did not negate the statutory threshold.

Conclusion: The monetary threshold was held to be established, and this issue was decided against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The declaration as a fugitive economic offender was sustained and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: For proceedings under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018, issuance of a warrant in relation to a scheduled offence remains sufficient so long as the accused has not been produced before the Indian court, and the threshold of Rs. 100 crores may be established on a prima facie basis from composite material that rationally supports reasons to believe.

---