advertisement
Embattled Indian tycoon Vijay Mallya said on Sunday, 8 July, that he will comply fully with court enforcement officers seeking to seize his British assets, but there was not much for them to take as his family’s lavish residences were not in his name.
A verdict is expected by early September, with 31 July as the final date for closing oral submissions and appeals likely whatever the outcome.
Speaking to Reuters at the British Formula One Grand Prix, where he is principal and co-owner of the Force India team, Mallya said he would hand over British assets held in his name. But a luxury country residence belonged to his children and a house in London belonged to his mother, making them untouchable.
“I have given the UK court on affidavit a statement of my UK assets. Which, pursuant to the freezing order, they are entitled to take and hand over to the banks,” he said.
“There’s a few cars, a few items of jewellery and I said, 'Ok, fine. You don’t have to bother to come to my house to seize them. I’ll physically hand them over. Tell me the time, date and place’.”
Mallya said a super-yacht he used for entertaining at races in Monaco and Abu Dhabi, which was recently sold at an auction in Malta after a dispute over unpaid crew wages, was not his problem either.
“I have not owned the Indian Empress boat for more than seven years now,” he said. It had belonged to “a Middle-Eastern gentleman” – whose name he would not disclose – in a deal that gave him access to it for one month a year, he said.
The Indian government’s Enforcement Directorate, which fights financial crimes, is seeking to declare him a “fugitive economic offender” and to confiscate Rs 125 billion worth of his assets.
Mallya has denied the charges, decried a “political witch-hunt” and has said he is seeking to sell assets worth about Rs 139 billion ($2.04 billion) to repay creditors.
Mallya repeated recent complaints on Twitter that Indian criminal enforcement agencies had frozen assets in India so he could not sell them, while banks continued to tot up interest.
He said the ED had also attached assets inherited from his father, including properties acquired in the 1920s, under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
“How can those be proceeds of crime? This is the injustice that is happening,” he said.
“I was always a resident of England and a non-resident of India. So where else do I come back to? So where’s the running away concept? It’s just become too political,” he said.
“And now in an (Indian) election year, I guess what they want to do is bring me back and hang me on the holy cross and hope to get more votes.”
(This story has been published in an arrangement with Reuters.)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)