How Indian intelligence officer allegedly recruited businessman to kill Canadian activist
Newly released court documents have detailed how a senior Indian intelligence officer allegedly recruited a businessman to assassinate a Canadian pro-Khalistan activist.
The unsealed files said Nikhil Gupta, an Indian national suspected of drugs and weapons trafficking, had admitted he was asked at a meeting in New Delhi to conduct the killing.
The target was Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, a lawyer with Canadian and U.S. citizenship who heads Sikhs For Justice, a New York-based group that advocates for Khalistan.
Pannun was a close associate of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, who was gunned down outside a Sikh temple in Surrey, B.C., on June 18, 2023 — a killing Canada has blamed on India.
Both victims were involved in a symbolic referendum on Khalistan, the independent state they had campaigned to establish in what is now India's Sikh-majority Punjab.
Story continues below advertisement
India has long complained that supporters of the Khalistan movement operate in Canada. Meanwhile, Ottawa has accused India of violating Canada's sovereignty by conducting a killing on Canadian soil.
Prime Minister Mark Carney invited Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to the recent G7 summit in Kananaskis, Alta., but the dispute over New Delhi's alleged activities in Canada remains unresolved.
View image in full screen
Vikash Yadav, a.k.a Amanat, allegedly recruited Nikhil Gupta by offering to drop robbery charges he faced in India. U.S. District Court
According to documents tabled in U.S. District Court, Gupta confessed his involvement in the plot to kill Pannun in a van after he was arrested at Prague airport on June 30, 2023.
He said the conspiracy began when he returned home to India following a trip to Uzbekistan and was informed he was scheduled for a court appearance on robbery charges.
Get breaking National news
For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up
By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy
He was then contacted by a man known as Amanat, who said he could clear Gupta's name.
Story continues below advertisement
'Gupta and Amanat met in New Delhi, India shortly thereafter,' according to the summary of Gupta's statement. 'Amanat asked Gupta to have someone in New York City killed.'
The U.S. has alleged that Amanat is Vikash Yadav, who works for the Research and Analysis Wing, the intelligence agency that reports to the office of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Yadav allegedly gave Gupta Pannun's residential addresses, phone numbers, and other information, and arranged for an associate to deliver $15,000 in cash to pay for the murder.
After Gupta agreed to the killing, Yadav allegedly told him the charges had 'been taken care of' and 'nobody will ever bother you again,' according to the U.S. allegations.
Gupta allegedly hired a hitman he thought was a Colombian cocaine supplier but who was actually a confidential source working for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, the records show.
Gupta is accused of offering the DEA source $100,000 to kill Pannun, and discussing additional murders in Canada. The plot was still in the planning stages when Nijjar was killed.
View image in full screen
Nikhil Gupta cooperated with U.S. investigators following his arrest in Prague. U.S. District Court
The day after Nijjar's murder, Gupta showed an undercover agent a video of the slaying and identified the victim as the Canadian target he had previously mentioned, according to the court documents.
Story continues below advertisement
'This strongly suggests that Gupta and/or persons working with Gupta were responsible for the associate's murder,' the U.S. Justice Department wrote in its summary of the investigation.
On June 19, 2023, Gupta told the undercover agent that Pannun's murder 'should be carried out as soon as possible, without regard to collateral consequences such as potential harm to civilian bystanders or any resulting protests or political upheaval,' according to the records.
'Gupta told the undercover agent, in sum and substance, that after he (the undercover agent) kills the intended victim, Gupta planned to direct the undercover agent to kill additional targets, at least some of whom are in Canada.'
But the plans went awry when Czech police arrested Gupta at Prague airport. A description of his arrest released in court stated that Gupta was cooperative and provided Amanat's contact information.
View image in full screen
Indian intelligence officer's contact information was allegedly found on Nikhil Gupta's phone, pictured. U.S. District Court
'The first thing that Gupta said was, in substance, 'I want to cooperate. Take me to America and I'll cooperate right now with you guys,'' according to a description of the arrest filed in court.
Story continues below advertisement
Gupta has been extradited to the U.S. to stand trial for the plot to kill Pannun. His lawyers want some of the evidence suppressed and one of the counts dropped.
The U.S. also indicted Yadav, the Indian intelligence officer, for murder conspiracy. He has not been taken into custody and is on the FBI's most wanted list.
The RCMP has not publicly disclosed who was behind Nijjar's murder, but has alleged that Indian government agents were involved. Four suspected hitmen were arrested in Alberta and Ontario last May.
The Canadian Security Intelligence Service said in its annual report last week that foreign governments were increasingly using crime groups to carry out killings of dissidents and opponents.
'This is what India is doing now,' Pannun said an in interview on Friday. Using criminal networks allows the Indian government to put 'distance' between itself and killings, he said.
Stewart.Bell@globalnews.ca
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Cision Canada
35 minutes ago
- Cision Canada
CLASS ACTION AUTHORIZED AGAINST CANADA ALLEGING UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF "EMPLOYER-TYING MEASURES"(1) IMPOSED ON TEMPORARY FOREIGN WORKERS, INCLUDING EMPLOYER-SPECIFIC OR "CLOSED" WORK PERMITS Français
MONTREAL, June 28, 2025 /CNW/ - On September 13, 2024, the Superior Court of Québec authorized the Association for the Rights of Household and Farm Workers to institute a class action against the Attorney General of Canada. The Association argues that "employer-tying measures" 1 imposed on temporary foreign workers 2, including employer-specific work permits or "closed" work permits, breach sections 7 and 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Association asks that certain provisions of the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations be declared unconstitutional, and that Charter damages (monetary compensation) be paid to all members of the class action. The Attorney General of Canada contests the merits of the class action, which will be determined by a trial to be scheduled at a later time. A person is automatically a member of this class action IF they worked in Canada after April 17, 1982 without having been a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident of Canada at the time, AND IF they meet at least one (1) of the following conditions: They were issued a work permit which included the condition of working for a specific employer (or group of employers) or at a specific employer's workplace (or group of workplaces): They meet this condition if they were hired through the Temporary Foreign Workers Program (TFWP), the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program (SAWP) or the Non-Immigrant Employment Authorization Program (NIEAP). They also meet this condition if they were hired through the International Mobility Program (IMP) or another immigration stream or program and their work permit included the condition of working for a specific employer (or group of employers) or at a specific employer's workplace (or group of workplaces). OR They were authorized to work in Canada without a work permit because they were employed by a foreign entity on a short-term basis, or because they were employed in a personal capacity by an individual who was not a Canadian citizen or permanent resident. This category: includes domestic workers, personal assistants or caregivers (nannies or au pair) who entered Canada along with their employers, or to join their employers for a short-term in Canada; includes accredited domestic workers employed in a personal capacity by certain foreign representatives, such as ambassadors, high commissioners, heads of international organizations, special representatives, or individuals occupying similar positions; does not include individuals who were employed by a foreign State or other foreign entity to work at an embassy, a high commission, a consulate, a permanent delegation to a United Nations agency, or a special representative office; does not include individuals employed by the United Nations, its agencies or an international organization of which Canada is a member. Individuals who meet those criteria are automatically included in the class action. They are not required to do anything further to become members of the class action. They will never have to pay legal costs arising from the class action. If a person does not want to be included in the class action, they may opt out of the class action by August 27, 2025 at 4:30 PM at the latest. The means of opting out and the consequences of doing so are explained in the detailed notice to members of the class action:
Vancouver Sun
an hour ago
- Vancouver Sun
'Political expediency': Lawyer for IDF soldiers critical of war-crimes probe
There is a growing backlash after the RCMP announced this month it is investigating whether Canadian citizens involved with clashes in or around Israel were in contravention of this country's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. Amid outcry from Jewish groups, the force said it wasn't a criminal probe, but to 'collect, preserve and assess information' for potential future prosecutions. Foreign governments, such as Belgium and Brazil, have also opened investigations into their own citizens who served with the Israel Defense Forces. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. Lt.-Col. (ret.) Maurice Hirsch, director of the Initiative for Palestinian Authority Accountability and Reform, at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, suggests these are politically motivated probes. He has been retained by IDF soldiers who have been questioned by foreign government representatives. Hirsch has previously served as senior legal analyst for Human Rights Voices in New York, lawyer for the Israel Defense Forces, director of the legal department for Palestinian Media Watch, senior military consultant for NGO Monitor, and adviser to the Israeli Ministry of Defense. Dave Gordon interviewed Hirsch for the National Post. What do you think motivates foreign governments who seek these investigations? I can't tell you exactly as to what their motivation is, but I believe that it's somewhere in the realms of political expediency, and internal demographic politics. It requires these governments to almost change what they've been doing traditionally, even to the point of potentially abandoning allies. Their voter base has changed. And so now you have a situation where you need to almost pander, to cater, to a more fringe population. In May, U.K. government lawyers told the High Court that there was no evidence Israel was deliberately targeting civilians in Gaza, and that evidence exists of Israel making efforts to limit harm to civilians. If the government doesn't believe that war crimes are being committed, then obviously they won't then take that forward, and actively engage in an investigation of something that they don't believe is happening. But if the government is so prejudiced, and predisposed, that war crimes are being committed, then obviously you launch an investigation. What evidence would a foreign investigation need, to theoretically try a soldier in court? Video footage, forensic analysis, operational logs — all impartially examined. What they have is so weak and poor, it's impossible to say it's 'evidence.' I think it's just so circumstantial and flimsy, even imagined. Organizations are gathering information from social media, when IDF soldiers put up videos of their activities in the Gaza Strip, and those videos are predominantly taken out of context and given a criminal shade. They'll destroy a civilian building, which is a war crime, but clearly not if it's a military target. For example, a place where weapons were stored, where terrorists were encamped, that had tunnels going underneath it. All of these possible scenarios. And so the video itself shows absolutely nothing. Governments are looking at reports and statements from people who have left Gaza, and can say anything they want. This whole effort, really, is a huge waste of time, resources and energy. It's entirely impotent, because without knowing exactly what the military goal was in any given circumstance, there's no way you can actually assess the actions of the soldier. There's a legal mechanism that already exists in Israel, to prosecute soldiers who have broken laws? Without question. There is an entire investigative process. Everyone knows they exist. And yet this almost sanctimonious drive, seems to be to ignore that reality, and pushes for these ad hoc courts to somehow take charge. In media interviews, you contend that there is no formal support from the Israeli government for IDF (soldiers), to defend them against foreign investigations. Is that still the case? That still appears to be the case. There are certain ministries that are involved in a risk assessment, and are there to help, I think, the higher ranking officers. But my experience till now has been that the lower ranking soldiers find it very, very difficult to get any support whatsoever from these ministries, and that I fear is very dangerous. Of these Israeli departments which you criticize, are they aware of the shortcomings you speak of? So the difficulty is, that they don't know even the extent of the exposure that the soldiers are facing, and wouldn't know necessarily to be able to provide assistance to everyone in need. You're talking about potentially hundreds of thousands of people. This is just a question of personnel and manpower. It's overwhelming right now, especially where we're busy fighting a war. On a government-to-government level, how is this issue being dealt with? There are discussions on all different types of levels, and without again getting into too much detail, I think in many cases, a lot of the work is being done diplomatically. The opening of an investigation is dependent on a government decision, rather than anyone presenting to a court with alleged evidence. That's already a very big step forward than what used to be the case in England, where any organization could claim that X had committed war crimes, submit any type of evidence they had to a local magistrate, and that magistrate could then issue an arrest warrant. With predominantly friendly governments, the hope is that they can be diplomatically persuaded, or dissuaded, from going down a certain path. Which steps should the Israeli government take to address these investigations? I think it needs to be a conglomerate of different actors, because the problem requires different solutions and different involvement. I would suggest a joint task force of the Justice Ministry, the Foreign Ministry, the Defense Ministry, each one contributing in their own unique way to providing the best support possible. And sometimes the support needed is relatively simple, just to say that that X person was not in active duty in any type of a position, that could be considered relevant, when the alleged war crimes happen. This interview has been edited for brevity. (National Post contacted the IDF spokesperson's unit and the spokesperson for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and received no response.) Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our newsletters here .
Edmonton Journal
an hour ago
- Edmonton Journal
'Political expediency': Lawyer for IDF soldiers critical of war-crimes probe
Article content There is a growing backlash after the RCMP announced this month it is investigating whether Canadian citizens involved with clashes in or around Israel were in contravention of this country's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. Amid outcry from Jewish groups, the force said it wasn't a criminal probe, but to 'collect, preserve and assess information' for potential future prosecutions. Article content Foreign governments, such as Belgium and Brazil, have also opened investigations into their own citizens who served with the Israel Defense Forces. Lt.-Col. (ret.) Maurice Hirsch, director of the Initiative for Palestinian Authority Accountability and Reform, at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, suggests these are politically motivated probes. He has been retained by IDF soldiers who have been questioned by foreign government representatives. Hirsch has previously served as senior legal analyst for Human Rights Voices in New York, lawyer for the Israel Defense Forces, director of the legal department for Palestinian Media Watch, senior military consultant for NGO Monitor, and adviser to the Israeli Ministry of Defense. Dave Gordon interviewed Hirsch for the National Post. Article content I can't tell you exactly as to what their motivation is, but I believe that it's somewhere in the realms of political expediency, and internal demographic politics. It requires these governments to almost change what they've been doing traditionally, even to the point of potentially abandoning allies. Their voter base has changed. And so now you have a situation where you need to almost pander, to cater, to a more fringe population. In May, U.K. government lawyers told the High Court that there was no evidence Israel was deliberately targeting civilians in Gaza, and that evidence exists of Israel making efforts to limit harm to civilians. If the government doesn't believe that war crimes are being committed, then obviously they won't then take that forward, and actively engage in an investigation of something that they don't believe is happening. Article content But if the government is so prejudiced, and predisposed, that war crimes are being committed, then obviously you launch an investigation. What evidence would a foreign investigation need, to theoretically try a soldier in court? Video footage, forensic analysis, operational logs — all impartially examined. What they have is so weak and poor, it's impossible to say it's 'evidence.' I think it's just so circumstantial and flimsy, even imagined. Organizations are gathering information from social media, when IDF soldiers put up videos of their activities in the Gaza Strip, and those videos are predominantly taken out of context and given a criminal shade. They'll destroy a civilian building, which is a war crime, but clearly not if it's a military target. For example, a place where weapons were stored, where terrorists were encamped, that had tunnels going underneath it. All of these possible scenarios. Article content And so the video itself shows absolutely nothing. Governments are looking at reports and statements from people who have left Gaza, and can say anything they want. This whole effort, really, is a huge waste of time, resources and energy. It's entirely impotent, because without knowing exactly what the military goal was in any given circumstance, there's no way you can actually assess the actions of the soldier. There's a legal mechanism that already exists in Israel, to prosecute soldiers who have broken laws? Without question. There is an entire investigative process. Everyone knows they exist. And yet this almost sanctimonious drive, seems to be to ignore that reality, and pushes for these ad hoc courts to somehow take charge. In media interviews, you contend that there is no formal support from the Israeli government for IDF (soldiers), to defend them against foreign investigations. Is that still the case? Article content That still appears to be the case. There are certain ministries that are involved in a risk assessment, and are there to help, I think, the higher ranking officers. But my experience till now has been that the lower ranking soldiers find it very, very difficult to get any support whatsoever from these ministries, and that I fear is very dangerous. Of these Israeli departments which you criticize, are they aware of the shortcomings you speak of? So the difficulty is, that they don't know even the extent of the exposure that the soldiers are facing, and wouldn't know necessarily to be able to provide assistance to everyone in need. You're talking about potentially hundreds of thousands of people. This is just a question of personnel and manpower. It's overwhelming right now, especially where we're busy fighting a war. On a government-to-government level, how is this issue being dealt with? Article content There are discussions on all different types of levels, and without again getting into too much detail, I think in many cases, a lot of the work is being done diplomatically. The opening of an investigation is dependent on a government decision, rather than anyone presenting to a court with alleged evidence. That's already a very big step forward than what used to be the case in England, where any organization could claim that X had committed war crimes, submit any type of evidence they had to a local magistrate, and that magistrate could then issue an arrest warrant. With predominantly friendly governments, the hope is that they can be diplomatically persuaded, or dissuaded, from going down a certain path. Which steps should the Israeli government take to address these investigations? I think it needs to be a conglomerate of different actors, because the problem requires different solutions and different involvement. Latest National Stories
