After the third day of hearings at the UK High Court in London, the liquor baron Vijay Mallya, on Thursday, February 13 said that he has not committed any offence under PMLA. He requested the ED to take back the assets that they have attached on the bank’s complaints. Mallya further said that he will immediately pay the 100% principal to the banks. This comes as he had filed an appeal against the Westminster magistrates court’s 2018 ruling at the UK High Court in London.
London: Fugitive liquor baron Vijay Mallya leaves after the third day of hearing at the UK High Court, where he has appealed against the extradition decision of Westminster Magistrates Court. pic.twitter.com/LzvZQ5wQUO— ANI (@ANI) February 13, 2020
Speaking about the case after the third day of hearing at the UK High Court, Vijay Mallya said, “You keep asking me what I think. You were there and sitting in proceedings. You can make up your own mind. It's kinda chilly. I am always feeling good. After all arguments, my gut feeling said I will win. I should be where my family is. Yes, I have an interest in India. CBI & ED have been unreasonable, all they have been doing to me over the past 4 years is totally unreasonable.”
“I request the banks with folded hands to take 100% of your principal back immediately. ED attached assets on complaints of banks. I have not committed any offences under PMLA that ED can attach my assets. Now I am saying, please banks take your money. ED and the banks, both are fighting on one and the other side with me. I am willing to pay them in full,” he added.
Mallya had filed an appeal against the Westminster magistrates court’s 2018 ruling which had cleared his extradition to India to face fraud and money laundering charges amounting to Rs 9,000 crore. On Tuesday, his defence team maintained that there is no prima facie case against him in India to justify the extradition as against Indian government's stand of major financial offences against Mallya. His lawyers have challenged the Westminster magistrates court's ruling stating that there were multiple errors while understanding the documents in the court's judgment.