The Biden administration has urged a federal court in Los Angeles to extradite Pakistani Canadian businessman Tahawwur Rana to India because he was wanted for his role in the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attack.
59-year-old Rana has been declared a fugitive by India, where he faced multiple criminal charges for participating in the 2008 terrorist attack in Mumbai, which killed 166 people, including 6 Americans. He was arrested again in Los Angeles after filing an extradition request in India on June 10, 2020. The U.S. government argued in a document filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles that India’s extradition request contained sufficient evidence for the possible reasons for India’s request for extradition of Rana’s criminal charges.
After determining that all the requirements for the extradition certificate have been met, the court certifies that Tahawwur Hussain Rana was extradited to the Secretary of State and entrusted him to custody in accordance with the draft order proposed by the US prosecutor in his statement. In court last week. Based on the evidence provided by India, Rana allowed fraud against the Indian government by creating and providing forged documents. The document, titled “Proposed Factual Findings and Legal Conclusions”, stated that the purpose behind this fraud has nothing to do with Indian criminal regulations.
Indian authorities are looking for Rana for his involvement in what is sometimes referred to as the deadly attack on September 11 in India. In August 2018, India issued an arrest warrant against him. The Indian authorities claimed that Rana and his childhood friend David Coleman Headley conspired to assist the Pakistani terrorist organization Lashkar Taiba (LeT) or the Rebels in planning the 2008 terrorist attack in Mumbai.
In any case, Rana knowingly allowed Headley to obtain the business visa and insurance he needed to carry out terrorism-related surveillance operations in India, which ultimately led to the three-day terrorist attack in Mumbai. Therefore, the court found that Rana conspired to forge documents in order to cheat and use the forged documents as authentic documents, which violated IPC 120B, 468 and 471, and it said that, therefore, the court determined that there were possible reasons. According to court documents, evidence shows that the Mumbai attack was carried out against the Indian terrorist organization LeT. Therefore, attacks on Indian land, especially those that will cause a large number of casualties and property losses, will cause panic among the Indian people.
Rana knows that Headley is involved in LeT, and by assisting him and providing cover for his activities, he is supporting terrorist organizations and their associates. Lana knew about Headley’s meeting, the content of the discussion, and the plan of the attack, including some targets. In addition, it is foreseeable that these attacks will result in death, injury and property damage, he said. Therefore, the court concluded that the possible reason is that Rana committed the crime of illegal association for the purpose of committing terrorist acts in violation of IPC 120B and UAPA 16, and the crime of conspiracy to commit terrorist acts in violation of UAPA. 18. The court also determined that, based on agency theory or collusion theory (as envisaged by UAPA 16), Rana may have committed a substantive criminal act in violation of UAPA 16, and the document indicates a US lawyer.
India violated IPC 468 and charged forgery for the purpose of cheating, as the subject of an alleged criminal conspiracy. India was also accused of using forged documents or electronic records in violation of IPC 471 as a genuine criminal conspiracy as the subject of a criminal conspiracy. The document said that the evidence showed that Rana and Hydley conspired to provide false information on multiple documents presented to the Indian government.
In 2006 and 2007, Rana and Headley conspired to include false information in Indian government documents so that Headley could obtain a business visa (multiple entry of one year and five years) as an alleged employee of the Rana Corporation. He claimed that in both cases, Rana reviewed Headley’s request but did not correct the information that Rana knew to be false. Rana also asked the Immigration Law Center to submit applications to the Indian consulate through its unsuspecting business partners. RANA also allowed his company to apply to the Reserve Bank of India, while falsely claiming that it wanted to open an office in Mumbai with Headley as the head of the company.
On the other hand, Rana’s lawyer opposed extradition in the draft order he proposed. The court concluded that the government did not comply with the requirements of Article 9(3)(c) of the Treaty, that is, if the crime was committed in the requested country,” he said.
Therefore, he refused to extradite, saying Rana’s conclusion on the determination of facts and laws Proposal. The two documents were submitted to the court on July 15.