The court found that Choksi failed to demonstrate any procedural irregularity, violation of rights, or misapplication of law that would justify interference with prior rulings. Judges rejected arguments challenging the assessment of evidence and the interpretation of bilateral obligations, concluding that the legal thresholds for appellate intervention had not been met. With this decision, the court effectively endorsed the findings that Belgium’s legal requirements for extradition were satisfied.
Top Belgian judges clear extradition path as the judgment underscores the limited scope of cassation review, which focuses on points of law rather than re-evaluating facts already tested before lower courts. The Court of Cassation noted that earlier benches had considered the submissions placed before them and had delivered reasoned orders in accordance with domestic law and applicable treaties.
Choksi, who left India in early 2018 as investigations into alleged bank fraud intensified, has been contesting extradition through multiple jurisdictions. He has faced proceedings in the Caribbean and Europe while authorities in India have pursued his return to face charges of conspiracy, cheating and corruption arising from the alleged misuse of letters of undertaking issued by Punjab National Bank. Investigators have accused Choksi and his associates of orchestrating a large-scale fraud that came to light in 2018, triggering a series of criminal cases and regulatory actions.
In Belgium, Choksi’s legal team advanced objections ranging from alleged procedural lapses to claims concerning his health and safety if extradited. They also questioned whether assurances provided by the requesting state met international standards. Lower courts, after examining the record, had concluded that the objections did not outweigh the obligations arising under extradition law and treaties. The Court of Cassation’s ruling indicates that those conclusions were legally sound.
Belgian prosecutors have maintained that extradition proceedings were conducted in line with domestic safeguards, including judicial scrutiny at multiple levels. The case has tested the balance between individual rights and international cooperation against economic crime, an area where European courts have increasingly emphasised adherence to treaty commitments while ensuring due process.
For authorities in India, the ruling represents a significant development in efforts to bring back high-profile economic offenders who have left the country. The Ministry of External Affairs and investigative agencies have consistently stated that extradition requests are pursued through judicial channels in the requested state and that outcomes depend on the independent assessment of foreign courts. Choksi’s case has been watched closely alongside that of his nephew Nirav Modi, who faces separate proceedings in the United Kingdom.
Legal experts note that a cassation court’s dismissal typically narrows the options available to an appellant. While administrative steps and executive decisions remain part of the extradition process, the affirmation of earlier judicial orders strengthens the position of the requesting state. Any further challenges would likely need to be based on fresh grounds or different legal forums, subject to the constraints of international law.
The Punjab National Bank case has had wide ramifications within India’s banking sector, prompting tighter controls, changes to trade finance instruments and heightened scrutiny of risk management practices. Regulators and lenders have sought to address vulnerabilities exposed by the fraud, while courts have overseen parallel proceedings involving asset attachment and recovery.