Court directs confiscation of UK-based arms consultant Bhandari’s properties

A Delhi court on Tuesday directed the confiscation of several properties of UK-based arms consultant Sanjay Bhandari under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act.

Special Judge Sanjay Jindal noted that on July 5 last year, Bhandari was declared a fugitive economic offender in connection with a money laundering case, following which the present court had been tasked with the consequential confiscation proceedings. The judge said the properties sought to be confiscated by the Directorate of Enforcement were in two categories.

“The first category includes properties that are claimed to be in the exclusive name or control of the respondent (Bhandari). The second category includes properties stated to be held by the benamidars, or the companies beneficially owned by the respondent,” he said.

The judge underlined that, according to the Act, even if it was not clearly established that a particular property was part of the proceeds of crime, it could very well be confiscated if the fugitive economic offender had an interest in it.

“So, in the absence of any categorical denial and presence of indirect admissions on the part of the respondent, it can be said that the Directorate of Enforcement has successfully discharged its burden to prove that the properties falling in the first category (properties in the name of the respondent), except the foreign immovable properties … and bank accounts …, are liable to be confiscated,” the judge said.

He said the foreign immovable properties and bank accounts needed further verification before confiscation. Regarding the second category of properties, which were allegedly indirectly owned by Bhandari, the judge underlined that the law required that a notice be sent to people interested in these properties, and after notices were sent to 16 such people, responses had been received from Bhandari’s wife Sonia and Niho Realtors (India) Pvt Ltd.

He said the properties regarding which objections had been raised by the two noticees required further consideration or verification before a confiscation order was passed.

The remaining 14 noticees did not respond to the notices, the judge said, adding that in the absence of any contest from their side, it could be assumed that the properties stated to be held by Bhandari through such persons or entities were actually owned by him, and so they could very well be confiscated without any further inquiry. He, however, said that “the properties which are held in the names of persons or entities other than the respondent and where no notice has been issued cannot be confiscated summarily.”