Who is Monika Kapoor? Woman extradited from US by CBI after 26 years on the run, she is accused of...
A US court, the District Court for the Eastern District of New York, approved her extradition under the agreement between India and the U.S. Kapoor had tried to stop the extradition by saying she would face torture if sent back to India. However, the U.S. Secretary of State rejected her claim and signed a warrant for her to be sent back.
Monika Kapoor (extreme left), a fugitive for 25 years, successfully extradited from the USA by the CBI. A team of CBI officials took her into custody in the USA. They are bringing her back to India on an American Airlines flight.
(Source: Third Party) pic.twitter.com/qXAjkLrq8G
— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) July 9, 2025 Monika Kapoor accused of jewellery business fraud, returns after 25 years
Monika Kapoor is accused of working with her two brothers to commit fraud by faking documents linked to their jewellery business. These fake papers were allegedly used to wrongly get duty-free licenses to import raw materials, which caused India to lose over USD 679,000 in revenue.
India had officially asked the U.S. to send Kapoor back in October 2010, using the India-US Extradition Treaty. After a long legal battle that lasted more than 10 years, her return marks a big win for the CBI. CBI filed a charge sheet in 2004 against Monika
The CBI filed a charge sheet in 2004 against Monika Kapoor and her brothers, Rajan and Rajiv, after completing its investigation into the fraud case. When Kapoor failed to appear for the investigation and skipped the trial, the court declared her a proclaimed offender in 2006.
In 2010, a Red Corner Notice was issued by Interpol at the CBI's request, and India formally reached out to U.S. authorities for her extradition the same year.
Meanwhile, her brothers faced trial in India. In 2017, a Delhi court convicted both Rajan and Rajiv for their role in the fraud.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
a minute ago
- Indian Express
HC denies bail to ED, CBI officers in bribery case: ‘grave abuse of official power'
Holding that allegations against them represent a 'grave abuse of official power', the Punjab and Haryana High Court denied regular bail to former Enforcement Directorate assistant director Vishal Deep and Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) Deputy SP Balbir Singh, both accused of demanding and facilitating bribes from accused in the Himachal Pradesh scholarship scam. Dismissing three connected bail petitions, a bench of Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul held that the allegations warranted continued custody of the accused to preserve the integrity of the trial process. The court noted that although the prosecution's case involved circumstantial and digital evidence, it nevertheless revealed 'a premeditated and well-orchestrated conspiracy' that exploited the institutional positions of the two senior officers. 'The allegations against petitioner Vishal Deep of demanding illegal gratification in exchange for manipulating outcome of the investigation and influencing arrests strike at the heart of the institutional integrity,' the court observed. It added that the use of encrypted apps like Zangi, assumed identities such as 'Rahim', and involvement of family-owned vehicles painted a picture of 'deliberate and strategically engineered' misconduct. The FIRs in the case, both dated December 22, 2024, stemmed from complaints by Bhupinder Kumar Sharma, chairman of Dev Bhumi Group of Institutions, Una, and Rajneesh Bansal, chairman of Himalayan Group of Professional Institutions, Sirmaur. They alleged that bribes of Rs 55 lakh and Rs 60 lakh, respectively, were demanded to avoid arrest in the ongoing ED and CBI investigations into the alleged scholarship scam. Vishal Deep, posted in Shimla at the time as the ED investigating officer, was accused of demanding bribes while posing under false names. A joint trap was laid following the complaints. The CBI claimed that two vehicles, one registered in Vishal Deep's name and another in his brother Vikas Deep's name, were found with traces of phenolphthalein, a chemical used in trap operations. Additionally, Rs 1.25 crore was recovered from Vikas Deep, further strengthening the prosecution's case, the court noted. The petitioners had argued that no direct recovery was made from them, and that the case relied solely on circumstantial and documentary evidence. Senior advocate Vinod Ghai, appearing for Vishal Deep, argued that his client had been falsely implicated and had already been granted bail in the second FIR. He submitted that 'further incarceration would serve no useful purpose' since the chargesheet had been filed on March 15 and no charges had yet been framed. Counsel for Balbir Singh contended that his client was not named in the initial FIR and was being implicated based on an allegedly inconclusive audio recording. Balbir Singh also cited his serious medical condition, including a renal transplant and chronic kidney disease, and stressed that he had cooperated with the investigation while out on interim medical bail. However, the court was unconvinced, stating that Balbir Singh's role 'went beyond passive facilitation'. His alleged coordination of meetings, selective leave from duty on critical dates, and presence corroborated by CDRs and CCTV footage 'indicate active participation in the execution of the conspiracy,' the court held. On the medical plea, the court took on record a report from PGIMER, Chandigarh dated July 2, which stated that Balbir Singh's cardiac and renal status was 'currently stable and within normal limits'. It directed the jail authorities to ensure follow-ups and treatment as advised but did not find medical grounds sufficient for bail. While acknowledging that 'bail is the rule and jail is the exception', the court underscored that this principle must be balanced against the need to protect public trust and prevent potential tampering of evidence, particularly since the complainants had yet to testify. 'Such exceptions must be tempered by the imperative to preserve the integrity of the process,' the court said, refusing to extend bail to either petitioner.
Indian Express
a minute ago
- Indian Express
HC denies bail to ED, CBI officers in Himachal scholarship scam bribery case
In a scathing order, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday denied regular bail to senior Enforcement Directorate (ED) officer Vishal Deep and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Deputy SP Balbir Singh, both accused of demanding and facilitating bribes from accused in the Himachal Pradesh scholarship scam. Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul dismissed three connected bail petitions, holding that the allegations represented a grave abuse of official power and warranted continued custody to preserve the integrity of the trial process. The court noted that although the prosecution's case involved circumstantial and digital evidence, it nevertheless revealed 'a premeditated and well-orchestrated conspiracy' that exploited the institutional positions of the two senior officers. 'The allegations against petitioner Vishal Deep of demanding illegal gratification in exchange for manipulating outcome of the investigation and influencing arrests strike at the heart of the institutional integrity,' the court observed. It added that the use of encrypted apps like Zangi, assumed identities such as 'Rahim', and involvement of family-owned vehicles painted a picture of 'deliberate and strategically engineered' misconduct. The FIRs in the case, both dated December 22, 2024, stemmed from complaints by Bhupinder Kumar Sharma, chairman of Dev Bhumi Group of Institutions, Una, and Rajneesh Bansal, chairman of Himalayan Group of Professional Institutions, Sirmaur. They alleged that bribes of Rs 55 lakh and Rs 60 lakh respectively were demanded to avoid arrest in the ongoing ED and CBI investigations into the scholarship scam. Vishal Deep, posted in Shimla at the time as the ED investigating officer, was accused of demanding bribes while posing under false names. A joint trap was laid following the complaints. The CBI claimed that two vehicles, one registered in Vishal Deep's name and another in his brother Vikas Deep's name, were found with traces of phenolphthalein, a chemical used in trap operations. Additionally, Rs 1.25 crore was recovered from Vikas Deep, further tightening the prosecution's case, the court noted. The petitioners had argued that no direct recovery was made from them, and that the case relied solely on circumstantial and documentary evidence. Senior advocate Vinod Ghai, appearing for Vishal Deep, argued that his client had been falsely implicated and had already been granted bail in the second FIR. He submitted that 'further incarceration would serve no useful purpose' since the chargesheet had been filed on March 15 and no charges had yet been framed. Counsel for Balbir Singh contended that his client was not named in the initial FIR and was being implicated based on an allegedly inconclusive audio recording. Singh also cited his serious medical condition, including a renal transplant and chronic kidney disease, and stressed that he had cooperated with the investigation while out on interim medical bail. However, the court was unconvinced, stating that Balbir Singh's role 'went beyond passive facilitation'. His alleged coordination of meetings, selective leave from duty on critical dates, and presence corroborated by CDRs and CCTV footage 'indicate active participation in the execution of the conspiracy,' the judge held. On the medical plea, the court took on record a report from PGIMER Chandigarh dated July 2, which stated that Balbir Singh's cardiac and renal status was 'currently stable and within normal limits'. It directed the jail authorities to ensure follow-ups and treatment as advised but did not find medical grounds sufficient for bail. While acknowledging that 'bail is the rule and jail is the exception', the court underscored that this principle must be balanced against the need to protect public trust and prevent potential tampering of evidence, particularly since the complainants had yet to testify. 'Such exceptions must be tempered by the imperative to preserve the integrity of the process,' the court said, refusing to extend bail to either petitioner.
Time of India
16 minutes ago
- Time of India
Scientist absolved of corruption charge levelled by director of Institute of Plasma Research
Ahmedabad: After a thorough investigation for two years, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) absolved a scientist with the Institute of Plasma Research (IPR), who was accused by his institute and its director of cheating and corruption. As the CBI did not find any prosecutable evidence against Subrata Pradhan for the charge of quid pro quo, it filed a closure report in the court last year. The complainant director and the institute did not raise any objection to the CBI's summary, and the special court accepted the report. After Pradhan approached the Gujarat high court over alleged harassment by his superior, he, along with other colleagues, was accused of criminal conspiracy, cheating, and corruption by the institute's director, Shashank Chaturvedi , in 2022. The CBI booked Pradhan under IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. You Can Also Check: Ahmedabad AQI | Weather in Ahmedabad | Bank Holidays in Ahmedabad | Public Holidays in Ahmedabad In 2024, the CBI filed a closure report in the court stating that while certain procedural lapses were observed, the allegations levelled in the FIR were not proved, and no prosecutable evidence was found against the accused. Specifically, the investigation found no evidence of "quid pro quo" against the officials. The procurement processes were routed through various committees, including the need aspect committee, tender award committee, and senior purchase committee. The CBI's finding regarding Pradhan's innocence was accepted by IPR's governing council, and Chaturvedi also formally accepted the conclusion and explicitly said that he had no objection to the acceptance of the closure report. "In view of the detailed investigation carried out by the CBI, the findings of no prosecutable evidence and absence of 'quid pro quo', and the unequivocal consent for acceptance of the closure report from the IPR and the original complainant," the court said while accepting the closure report against the scientist.
