Washington: The Biden administration has asked a federal court in Los Angeles to extradite Canadian businessman Tahawwur Rana, who is of Pakistani origin, to India, where he is wanted for his role in the 2008 Mumbai terror attack.
Rana, 59, has been declared a fugitive by India, where he is facing multiple criminal charges for his role in the 2008 Mumbai terror attack, which killed 166 people, including six Americans. On June 10, 2020, he was arrested again in Los Angeles in response to an extradition request from India.
The US government argues in a submission to the US District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles that India's extradition request contains sufficient evidence of probable cause on each of the criminal charges for which India seeks Rana's extradition.
"Having found that all of the requirements for certification of extradition have been satisfied, the Court certifies the extradition of Tahawwur Hussain Rana to the Secretary of State and commits him to custody pursuant," as per to a draught order proposed by the US attorney in his submission before the court last week.
"Based on the evidence submitted by India, RANA allowed fraud against the Indian government to occur through the creation and submission of forged documents. The purpose behind such fraud is irrelevant under the Indian criminal provisions," said the document titled proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law.
Authorities in India allege that Rana conspired with his childhood friend David Coleman Headley to aid the Pakistani terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), or Army of the Good, in the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks.
"In any event, RANA knowingly allowed Headley to obtain the business visa and the cover that he needed to conduct terrorism-related surveillance operations in India, ultimately leading to the three-day terrorist attacks in Mumbai. Accordingly, the Court finds there is probable cause that RANA conspired to forge a document for the purpose of cheating and use a forged document as genuine, in violation of IPC 120B, 468, and 471," it stated.
"Rana was aware that Headley was involved with LeT, and that by assisting Headley and affording him a cover for his activities, he was supporting the terrorist organisation and its associates. Rana knew of Headley's meetings, what was discussed, and the planning of the attacks, including some of the targets. Further, it was foreseeable that these attacks would lead to death, injury, and destruction of property," it stated.
"Accordingly, this Court finds that there is probable cause that Rana committed the crimes of conspiracy with the object of committing a terrorist act, in violation of IPC 120B and UAPA 16, and conspiracy to commit a terrorist act, in violation of UAPA 18. The court further finds that under an agency theory or an abetting theory (as contemplated by UAPA 16), there is probable cause that Rana committed the substantive crime of commission of a terrorist act in violation of UAPA 16," said the document submitted by the US attorney.
As an object of the alleged criminal conspiracy, India has charged forgery for the purpose of cheating, in violation of IPC 468. As an object of the alleged criminal conspiracy, India also charged the crime of passing off a forged document or electronic record as genuine, in violation of IPC 471.
According to the document, the evidence shows that Rana and Headley conspired to provide false information on multiple documents submitted to the Indian government.
"In 2006 and 2007, Rana conspired with Headley to include false information on Indian government documents, so that Headley could obtain business visas (a one-year and a five-year multiple entry) as an alleged employee of Rana's business. On both occasions, Rana reviewed Headley's applications and failed to correct information Rana knew to be false," it said.
"Rana also had the Immigrant Law Center submit the applications to the Indian Consulate through an unsuspecting business partner." RANA also allowed his company to apply to the Reserve Bank of India, falsely claiming that it wanted to open an office in Mumbai with Headley as the 'Office Head," it stated.
Rana's attorney, on the other hand, is opposed to extradition in their proposed draught order.
"The Court finds that the government has not satisfied the requirement of Article 9(3)(c) of the Treaty that a request for extradition be supported by such information as would justify the committal for trial of the person if the offense had been committed in the Requested State," it said.
Extradition is therefore denied," says "Rana's proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law." Both the documents were submitted before the court on July 15.