ACCESSED: AgustaWestland scam middleman Christian Michel's extradition judgment. Here's how his 'political scapegoat' and 'inhuman treatment' claims were rejected by the Dubai court

In a stunning and potentially game-changing development in the long-running AgustaWestland scam case, India has scored a massive win with a Dubai court agreeing to extradite deal middleman Christian Michel. Michel, who had been detained in Dubai in June, had since been the subject of extradition proceedings, with the verdict coming on September 2, 2018

Now, Republic TV has accessed the judgment copy of the Dubai court which reveals how Michel's claims, that he is a political scapegoat and fearmongering over 'inhuman treatment' he would be subjected to if extradited, were rejected by the Judge.

---

The four-page order copy, accessed by Republic TV's Shawan Sen, is in Arabic, and has been translated:

Case of handing over Christian Michel to Indian authorities for money laundering, bribe, illegal action.
 
Defence: This is a political crime where political parties are involved. I am being made a scapegoat. No bribes were given.
 
Judge: Defence is not enough and is rejected. In Clause 10, accused claims that he would be treated inhumanly if sent to India. This is rejected since there is no aim for authorities to illtreat him. No political reasons and no guarantee has been provided.
 
Judge: There is no reason for the court to refuse the extradition procedure. No other crime committed that he should be held here rather than the crime committed in the applicants country.
 
Judge: We reject the request of investigating the arrest officer Mr Walid to listen to his testimony in relation to his meeting that was held between Indian authorities and Michel.
 
Judge: The case in Italy is different involving other persons more than the accused.
 
Accused Defense: Boston Court Judgement in the case against accused no 3785 of late 2013 submitted as defense by the accused
 
Reply of Judge: We could not find any judgment and it was not clear that judgement was issued for the same charges and or accusation in this case against the wanted accused.
 
Accused Defense: The accused used the defense that decision issued by the Swiss Public Prosecution on 7th January 2017 from Federal Prosecution was meant to close the investigation.
 
Reply of the Judge: This matter does not mean issuance of decision for there is no reason for filing a complaint and documents. Whereas, the documents are not relevant to this matter and not related to the facts for which the accused is requested by the applicant to be extradited to India.
 
Accused Defense: The defense has mentioned that in the agreement certain conditions are required to fulfill the subject of the application, which was not complied with.
 
Reply of the Judge: The required conditions required to fulfill the subject of the application has been complied with. The above mentioned agreement rules either in its formal and subjective conditions has been fulfilled and proven.
 
This is because the submitted written request from the applicant authorities in India has been accompanied by the authority name, required person’s name and with arrest order issued against the accused for the concerned judicial authorities; documents complying to the requirements as specified I the treaty between both countries.
 
Hence, the above mentioned reasoning of the defense does not hold merit and therefore rejected.
 
Accused Defense: The defense argues that the filing of the criminal complaint has prescribed during the time of submission and the handing over of the receiving request.
 
Reply of the Judge:  Our defense point is that these crimes are to be considered as the prescriptive period for these crimes is 3 years as per the law of the applicant country. In addition, the agreement states in article No 6 that refusal is only possible in cases where the 3 years prescriptive period has lapsed. Therefore, this defense is not on its proper place, which led us to reject this point of defense.
 
Article No 6 allows us to refuse and reject the defense clause referring to lapse of time bar.
 
Accused Defense: Defense cites Article no 423 which specifies that there is a fine or imprisonment for such crime which involves cheating and or breach of contract, for facts, good, elements for forming the same products or its sources in the condition considered in the same reason in the contract and its value, its power, its weights, or the goods itself; if any product is delivered which is different than he has signed for, then any person who does so for the propose of trading and or commerce and or commercial then he shall be punished for the same punishment under said Article with the fine and or imprisonment.
 
The accused defense is that he has already been imprisoned for more than equivalent of the punishment and hence could not anymore be held accountable again of the same crime.

Reply of the Judge: Judge rejected the defense based on article 423

Here's the four-page order copy accessed by Republic TV:

 

---

The AgustaWestland or Choppergate scam traces its origin to a 1999 request by the Indian Air Force to initiate the procurement of 8 choppers (later 12) for use by VVIPs. Over the next decade, the specifications for these choppers, particularly relating to the ceiling height, emerged (once the scam came to light) as the contentious matter, as it served as a filter as to which helicopter-manufacturers could bid for the tender. To avoid a single-bidder situation, the height was changed, making six firms eligible, of which three applied.

Following this, as per scam allegations, the bid by the Italian firm AgustaWestland (Finmecanica) was favoured, improperly bypassing rival bids from firms from the US and Russia. Following top executives of the Italian firm being arrested in Italy (later released) for allegedly bribing Indian officials to secure the deal, a CBI inquiry was ordered in India as well, with a IAF officials, bureaucrats and ministers coming under the scanner. Former IAF chief SP Tyagi was arrested by the CBI in the case on 2016.

Michel, a middleman in the deal, may hold the key to establishing what really went on, including mentions of bribery found in documents related to the case.