DID INDIA PURSUE THE FUGITIVE BILLIONAIRE MEHUL CHOKSKI BECAUSE HE PLANNED TO CHEAT JUSTICE BY FLEEING TO EXTRADITION-PROOF CUBA, AND DID HIS UK LAWYER NOW VIOLATE PROFESSIONAL ETHICS?

If you read my original investigative report, entitled "The Disappearance of Mehul Choksi," and the accompanying Appendices, which attached the material that I collected during my investigation, you know that there was ample evidence that CHOKSI had planned, and was in the process of executing, covert travel to Cuba, to avoid extradition to face justice in India for his crimes. A Jamaican escape vessel and crew was laid on, and we believe Indian intelligence was alerted.

While he awaits extradition in a prison cell, having exhausted all his possible appellate remedies in Belgium, his UK lawyers are busy with a civil suit brought on his behalf, alleging that he was unlawfully kidnapped in Antigua, and that the bad actors who executed the act were acting on behalf of the Government of India.

I forwarded copies of my Report and Appendix to all parties, and the Court, in the pending civil case, as an Amicus Curie. I also attempted to extract information out of MICHAEL POLAK, Choksi's controversial British barrister, by offering to appear at trial as an expert witness, but he not only failed to respond, he filed an affidavit with the Court, seeking to challenge my credibility. The fact that I was a money launderer 45 years ago, and am now an expert witness,  and a consultant to law enforcement, seemed to be missing from his claims. I have testified three times before the United States Congress as an expert on financial crime.

In my opinion, he did this solely to try to discredit the investigative report and Appendix, whose information regarding Choksi' abortive efforts to flee to Cuba could benefit the defendants in the civil case. The last thing Choksi wants is for the trier of fact to get the full and complete story of Choksi's attempt to flee to avoid prosecution, but the truth must come out.

 Moreover, by filing that Affidavit, Attorney Polak exposed himself to being called as a witness at trial, and even a first-year law student knows that lawyers cannot be witnesses in a case where they are counsel. Mr. Polak must now RECUSE himself from any further involvement in the proceedings. His Affidavit has disqualified him from any further involvement in the UK civil case; He must withdraw.