If the money laundering charges are accepted by the court, Nikhil Gupta will face a potential 40-year sentence
New Delhi: US prosecutors have informed the Southern District Court of New York that they will add charges of conspiracy to commit money laundering against Indian national Nikhil Gupta.
Gupta, accused by US officials of being involved in a plot to eliminate Khalistani terrorist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun—who is banned under India’s Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)—has been in US custody since 14 June 2024, and is incarcerated at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. He was arrested in Prague on 30 June 2023, by Czech law enforcement authorities at the request of the US government.
This new step by the Department of Justice, undertaken under the new Trump administration, potentially exposes Gupta to additional 20 years in prison, if convicted and is being seen as a pressure tactic to force him to agree to a guilty plea deal and “confess” to whatever he will be asked to.
Significantly, Gupta was extradited from Czech on only two charges.
In an earlier interview to The Sunday Guardian (18 August, FBI case naming me in Pannun plot is a political game: Nikhil Gupta), he had said that he had been framed in the case.
On 25 February, the US Department of Justice told the court of Victor Marreno, who is hearing Gupta’s case, that it has been informed by the Ministry of Justice, Czech Republic that the US prosecutors require no waiver of “rule of speciality” in Gupta’s case because the money laundering charges against Gupta are based upon the same alleged facts submitted by the US to the Czech during the extradition proceedings.
The letter informing the Czech’s observation was sent by Matthew Podolsky, Acting United States Attorney, represented by Assistant US Attorneys Camille L. Fletcher, Alexander N. Li, and Ashley C. Nicolas.
The Sunday Guardian wrote to the Department of Justice seeking clarifications on the ground on which the Czech government has waived off the rule of speciality. No response was received till the time the story went to press. A similar email was sent to the Czech Ministry of Justice, whose response is attached in the latter part.
The February communication follows a 17 January court proceeding where US prosecutors had stated that they planned to seek a specialty waiver from the Czech Republic to add the money laundering charge. Gupta was initially extradited for facing charges of Murder-for-Hire Conspiracy and Conspiracy to Commit Murder-for-Hire—each carries a maximum sentence of 10 years of incarceration.
On 5 February, Gupta, through his lawyer Michael Rooney (Assistant Federal Defender), wrote to the Consulate General of India in New York requesting a consular visit “as soon as possible.”
More than a month after Rooney’s letter and for the first time since his extradition to the US on 7 February, two officials from the Consulate visited Gupta. According to sources familiar with the matter, when Gupta requested assistance to hire a private attorney, he received no assurances, with the response essentially being “no.” The next hearing of the case is scheduled for 28 March.
Sources told The Sunday Guardian that given the fact that the trial in the case is to begin now, and the Ministry of External Affairs indicating that it will not be able to help, the family members of Gupta were looking to generate funds through crowdsourcing to provide the best possible legal help to him.
Under Article 17 of the US-Czech Extradition Treaty, the Rule of Specialty restricts prosecution to only those offenses for which extradition was explicitly granted. Prosecuting an extradited person for any new offense requires the consent of the extraditing country—in this case, the Czech Republic.
However, Article 17(1)(b) creates an explicit exception: prosecution is allowed for a new offense if it is based on the same facts that were the basis for extradition, provided the offense carries the same or lesser penalty. This provision gave the US government the legal basis to proceed with the money laundering charge without requiring further consent from Czech authorities.
Gupta was hit with the money laundering charge only after his arrival in the United States. This new charge, prosecutors claim, is rooted in the same factual conduct as the original charges—specifically, the transfer of funds meant to pay a hitman.
The Superseding Indictment that was released by the Department of Justice earlier, accuses Gupta of coordinating a $15,000 advance payment to an undercover agent posing as a hitman.
This payment, prosecutors allege, was intended to finance the murder-for-hire plot against Pannun. According to the indictment, the money was transferred across international borders—from outside the United States into New York—with the explicit intent to promote and facilitate the assassination plot.
This alleged financial transaction forms the basis of the conspiracy to commit money laundering charge under 18 USC. 1956(h), with the actual laundering conduct alleged under 18 USC. 1956(a)(2)(A). That statute criminalizes the international transfer of funds with the intention of promoting specified unlawful activity—in this case, the murder-for-hire conspiracy.
On 18 February, Gupta’s defence lawyer, Michael Rooney, a public defender who has been given to Gupta, mounted a spirited and passionate defence and wrote to the Czech Ministry of Justice requesting them not to provide waiver of the “rule of speciality” and gave five grounds seeking the said requests.
Despite this effort, the Czech Republic sided with the US interpretation, concluding that the charge falls within the permissible scope of Article 17(1)(b) since it is factually rooted in the same alleged conduct—the conspiracy to carry out an assassination in New York—that triggered Gupta’s extradition.
The five grounds that Rooney raised in front of the Czech officials were:
- The crime charged post-extradition is not based upon new conduct. The Superseding Indictment does not allege any new facts that were not already included in the First Indictment and the Affidavit in Support of Extradition. The additional charge of “Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering” is based on the same pre-extradition conduct (coordination of payment for a murder-for-hire) that was already presented to Czech authorities.
- The crime charged after extradition is not an extraditable crime or offense under the US-Czech Republic Extradition Treaty. The crime of “Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering” under 18 USC 1956(a)(2)(A) is not punishable under Czech law in the same way as it is under US law. Czech law criminalizes the obfuscation of the origin of illicit proceeds, not the transfer of money for use in criminal activity. Therefore, the crime is not extraditable under the treaty.
- The crime charged after extradition carries a maximum sentence substantially higher than the maximum sentence of the crime for which Gupta’s extradition was approved. The new charge carries a maximum sentence of 20 years, which is double the 10-year maximum sentence for the murder-for-hire and conspiracy charges upon which extradition was granted. This disparity in sentencing would highly prejudice Gupta.
- Gupta would like the opportunity to fully exercise his rights vis-à-vis the Rule of Specialty. Both US and Czech laws recognize that the extradited party has certain rights regarding the application of the Rule of Specialty. Waiving the rule without a hearing in the Czech criminal court would violate Gupta’s due process rights under Czech law, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Czech Act on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters.
- Waiving the Rule of Specialty would allow the United States Attorney’s Office to improperly overcharge Gupta. The US criminal system incentivizes prosecutors to overcharge defendants to pressure them into plea bargains. By adding the money laundering charge, Mr Gupta now faces a potential 40-year sentence instead of 20 years, increasing the likelihood that he will accept a plea deal rather than exercise his right to a trial. Waiving the Rule of Specialty would enable this unfair practice.
Gupta’s lawyers formally argued that the US prosecution was engaging in “overcharging”—a tactic where prosecutors add heavier charges after extradition to increase sentencing exposure and pressure the defendant into a plea deal.
The decision by Czech officials has raised concerns that the US, due to its global status and political influence, may have exerted pressure on the Czech authorities to allow the charge to proceed, overriding the stricter interpretation of the Rule of Specialty that European states often adhere to.
The Sunday Guardian wrote to the Czech Ministry of Justice for a response on these allegations.
Marketa Androva, spokesperson of the Ministry of Justice of the Czech Republic, responded to The Sunday Guardian’s queries:
Q: What is the Ministry’s official position on the new money laundering charge added by the US after extradition—does the Ministry consider this compliant with the Rule of Specialty even though it was not explicitly mentioned in the original extradition request?
A: The Ministry of Justice of the Czech Republic has not received any formal request for the extension of extradition in the case of Mr Nikhil Gupta. Therefore, the Ministry of Justice of the Czech Republic cannot provide any official position or comments on the new money laundering charge added by the US authorities after extradition of Mr Nikhil Gupta. The Ministry of Justice is able to provide general information on the principle of speciality and its regulation in the domestic legislation of the Czech Republic.
Q: Since the US-Czech Extradition Treaty doesn’t explicitly provide for such post-extradition additions based on “same facts,” what legal reasoning or precedent did the Ministry rely on in deciding a separate waiver was not required?
A: The treaty Between the United States of America and Czechoslovakia on the Mutual Extradition of Criminals does not contain provisions allowing for the unilateral waiver of the Rule of Specialty. However, domestic Czech legislation allows for the extension of extradition based on a formal request submitted to the Ministry of Justice of the Czech Republic.
As follows from Section 103(1)(a) of the Act no. 104/2013 of the Collection of Laws of the Czech Republic, on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters, it is necessary for the requesting State to request an extension of extradition for the purposes of criminal prosecution for acts committed prior to extradition, other than those for which the extradition was granted. However, if there are no new facts and the new charge is based upon the same facts for which the extradition was granted, it is not necessary to seek the extension of extradition (waiver of the rule of specialty).
It is fully in the competence of the requesting State, not the Ministry of Justice of the Czech Republic, to assess whether the new charge is based upon the same facts, in which case there is no need to seek the waiver of the rule of specialty or whether the new elements of the alleged criminal conduct are of such importance that it is necessary to seek the waiver.
Q: Also, there are concerns from some legal experts that the United States may have used its diplomatic weight to influence this decision, pushing for a broader interpretation of the Rule of Specialty. How does the Ministry respond to these concerns?
A: The Ministry of Justice of the Czech Republic strongly rejects any allegation that it has acted under the influence of any other entity in any matter, including the case of Mr Nikhil Gupta.