Extradition By Stealth: How Regulatory Probes Sidestep Treaty Channels

In India today, white-collar crime probes are increasingly relying on extra-judicial travel bans rather than formal extradition proceedings. Investigators issue Look-Out Circulars (“LOC”) and Interpol diffusions, or repeatedly summon suspects, effectively freezing them at international borders or off-shore without invoking the usual treaty process. These tactics can act like a shadow extradition wherein a suspect need never see an Indian courtroom, yet finds himself detained or immobilized by administrative order. Critics warn that this erodes due process and legislative integrity. As one analyst explains, LOCs “prevent and monitor effectively the entry or exit of anyone who may be sought by law enforcement agencies,” serving as a silent border trap¹. Through the course of this Article, we examine three real-life cases that reveal how India’s Enforcement Directorate (“ED”) and other agencies deploy these tools and the legal consequences thereof.

CASE 1: CYBER-IMPERSONATION SCAM AND THE AIRPORT TRAP

It was late July 2025 when 43-year-old Aludasu Sudhaker, accused in a cyber “digital arrest” scam, was intercepted at Mumbai’s Chhatrapati Shivaji airport. Immigration officers blocked his departure just as he tried to board a flight, having been tipped off by an LOC quietly issued by Hyderabad police. Sudhaker and his associates had posed as government officials (even using fabricated CBI IDs and false FIRs) to extort money from victims. With no extradition warrant yet in hand, police simply had Sudhaker’s name flagged at immigration. Under this pretext, Hyderabad detectives waiting at the gate handed him over to a cyber-crime team. “The man was detained … based on a LOC issued by the Hyderabad police,” NDTV reported², underscoring how a simple watch-list entry can substitute for any formal arrest order.

In effect, that LOC acted like an invisible global warrant. The only procedural step was an administrative request to the Bureau of Immigration where no court was involved in detaining Mr. Sudhaker. It can be seen that these LOCs are routinely “opened to search for absconding criminals and…prevent the exit of anyone who may be sought by law enforcement”³. By using the LOC, authorities bypassed the usual extradition safeguards Mr. Sudhaker never got a chance to challenge the action in court or confront the charges abroad. The power to issue an LOC rests with senior officers (police, ED, CBI, etc.) and requires only minimal paperwork (name, passport, case reference). In practice, it means suspects can be grabbed at borders on mere suspicion, without judge or formal mutual legal assistance. In this cyber-fraud case, the LOC stopped the suspect in his tracks, “a dramatic demonstration” of how regulatory agencies can enforce a de facto travel ban without invoking any treaty processes.

However, this case involved the local police and the ED was not even in the room yet. ED similarly uses LOCs in PMLA investigations. For instance, ED recently hit industrialist Anil Ambani with an LOC to prevent his overseas travel while questioning him⁴. Whether by police or ED, the result is the same whereby a suspect is stuck in India or apprehended at the border by fiat, rather than through a court’s extradition warrant. In each instance, the LOC’s very purpose is to keep the person within reach of investigators. This tactic secures the presence of the person just as an extradition request would, but without any cross-border judicial review.

CASE 2: THE FUGITIVE DIAMANTAIRE AND INTERPOL DIFFUSIONS

By early 2018, the Punjab National Bank (“PNB”) fraud had erupted into a Rs 13,500 crore scandal. Diamantaire Nirav Modi and his associates had quietly fled abroad just weeks before regulators caught on. With months lost, the ED (in tandem with the CBI) turned to Interpol for help. In March 2018, news reports revealed that India had formally requested an Interpol Diffusion

Notice to locate and arrest Nirav Modi overseas⁵. A diffusion is an informal, urgent alert sent through Interpol’s channels (but not publicly posted on the website) to tip off police around the world that a person is wanted. In practical terms, it broadcasts that “This person is wanted for criminal prosecution, please detain if seen”

For Nirav’s case, Delhi’s central agencies hoped the Interpol Diffusion Notice would trigger an international hold, even before a formal extradition treaty was invoked. Diffusions have nearly the same effect as an Interpol Red Notice where they can prompt local officers to detain suspects at airports or border crossing, yet they require no judicial review by the requested country. After the diffusion was issued, Nirav Modi remained abroad, shifting from Dubai to the UK. He was eventually arrested by London police in March 2019, but only after a US extradition request failed. By then, months of delay had occurred. Throughout, India’s strategy was clear: use global police channels to pin down a suspect without immediately deploying the slow machinery of the Extradition Act.

Unlike a treaty extradition request, it does not need formal diplomatic papers or sworn affidavits. Even without a court mandate, it can compel foreign agencies to keep an eye on the target. Indeed, the ED’s press release notes that diffusions allow police to locate and trace suspects globally without waiting for legal processes. In Nirav’s saga, this meant UK authorities knew he was wanted and could border-control him, yet India did not initially have to file the voluminous extradition dossier. Critics argue that this “circuitous” use of Interpol steps skims past due process and no independent judge abroad had vetted the charges before Modi’s detention. India eventually secured Nirav’s extradition through the formal treaty (granted in 2021), but only after he had languished for years in London’s limbo. The diffusion served as a pressure valve to pinch him within the orbit of law enforcement during the wait.

CASE 3: THE ELUSIVE TAX OFFENDER AND SUMMONS TACTICS

Sometimes even treaty extradition is impossible. That was the case with Sanjay Bhandari (a pseudonym) an Indian businessman accused of tax evasion who fled to the UK in 2016. Despite India’s treaty with Britain, London courts repeatedly rebuffed New Delhi’s extradition pushes. A UK court refused to even let India appeal Bhandari’s discharge, “virtually ruling out chances of him being brought to the country”⁶. With the formal route stymied, ED resorted to alternate means to “bring back the accused.” Court filings show ED admitting that, as Bhandari fled, it had simultaneously deployed domestic travel bans and global alerts. In an official application under India’s Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, ED notes that “the accused herein is covered under the definition of Fugitive Economic Offender… he has been evading the process of law in India by staying outside the jurisdiction of Indian Courts.” It then recounts that “a look out circular was issued at the instance of the ED on 14.02.2017” to detect him. In other words, as soon as Bhandari skipped the country, ED quietly told immigration to flag his passport, even while simultaneously submitting legal paperwork⁷.

The Delhi court record spells out how ED used every tool short of open extradition. After seeking the LOC, ED got an Interpol Red Notice as well for this case, which is another means of layering administrative pressure. Crucially, these notices and summoning tactics don’t require the demanded country to review evidence. They simply restrict the fugitive’s movements and signal “we want this person.” Back home, ED also issued repeated coercive summons under Section 50 of the PMLA. Each summons demanded Bhandari appear for questioning, implicitly leveraging India’s anti-money laundering laws to extract testimony. When he predictably did not comply (he was in the UK), ED treated him as a proclaimed offender and moved to confiscate his assets under the FEO Act. In effect, India’s agencies declared: you may avoid trial, but we will pursue you via all channels.

This web of measures illustrates the blunt trade-off. On the one hand, ED has wide statutory power under the PMLA and Fugitive Economic Offenders Act to trace absconders. On the other, formal extradition requires painstaking legal proof and can easily be rejected. With Bhandari, when the UK shut the door on extradition, the ED’s fallback was to freeze him in place using LOCs and Interpol alerts. He remains “technically wanted by India,” yet cannot safely return to any country without risk of detention. Thus ED has succeeded in (so far) ensnaring the suspect through administrative means, while the extradition machinery goes unused.

CONCLUSION

RULE OF LAW OR REGULATORY OVERRIDE?

These cases show a deliberate shift in strategy. Instead of a slow formal process, Indian regulators are quietly using immigration notices and international police networks to achieve similar ends. That raises hard questions: Are these measures legal and fair? Supreme Court watchers note that our laws do allow ED sweeping powers – but they must still respect basic rights. In fact, a recent Karnataka High Court ruling emphasized that “issuing LOCs on mere suspicion would be arbitrary and violate fundamental rights under Article 21”⁸. The Hon’ble Court struck down an indefinite LOC issued without charges, warning it abused due process. Yet there is no clear law obliging ED to use or limit these tools. As of now, PMLA Section 50 lets ED summon anyone and Section 10 of the Passport Act lets government impound passports. But no amendment explicitly governs how and when ED can turn a summons into an international red light.

For legal professionals and clients facing such probes, the landscape is unsettling. Traditionally, treaty extradition had checks, courts in both countries must verify evidence. In contrast, a LOC or diffusion requires only a request from Indian authorities. If abused, a dissident or suspect could find themselves stuck abroad without recourse. International partners have already grumbled. As one senior official quipped after Lalit Modi’s failed Interpol bid, India had better “take up with Interpol past cases” where countries got Red Notices “by just providing required legal documents”⁹. In other words, India must either play by the rules or risk losing diplomatic goodwill.

Ultimately, “extradition by stealth” puts onus on parliament and courts. If these administrative shortcuts become routine, law-makers may need to prescribe firmer safeguards. At minimum, regulators should not exploit them indefinitely on no more than suspicion alone. For now, ED’s heavy reliance on LOCs, diffusions and summons is a telling reminder that in cross-border investigations, India’s agencies can often act faster than the treaties allow but at what cost to the rule of law?

Footnotes

1. Live Mint, Understanding Lookout Circulars: What they mean and why they’re issued, Live Mint, (02.08.2025, 7:45) https://www.livemint.com/news/india/understanding-lookout-circulars-what-they-mean-and-why-theyre-issued-anilambani-ed-11754062590205.html

2. Uma Sudhir, Key Accused in Hyderabad’s High-Profile “Digital Arrest” Fraud Case Arrested, NDTV, India News (02.08.2025, 7:45) https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/key-accused-in-hyderabads-high-profile-digital-arrest-fraudcase-arrested-8889769

3. Id at note 1

4. Supra & TNN, Fraud case: ED Calls Anil Ambani for quizzing; issues lookout notice, Times of India, (02.08.2025, at 7:50), https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/ed-calls-anil-ambani-for-quizzing-on-august-5-in-fraud-caseissues-lookout-notice/articleshow/123051593.cms

5. IANS, ED Approaches Interpol to locate Nirav Modi, Family, The Quint, (02.08.2025,, at 8;00), https://www.thequint.com/news/india/ed-approaches-interpol-to-locate-nirav-modifamily#:~:text=,against%20Modi%20to%20locate%20him

6. Press Trust of India, New Delhi, Vadra skips ED summons again, cites court’s permission to travel abroad, Business Standard, https://www.business-standard.com/india-news/vadra-skips-ed-summons-again-cites-court-s-permissionto-travel-abroad-125061700862_1.html

7. Sanjay Bhandari vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCCOnline Del 7741

8. Sudarshan Ramesh v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Kar 71

9. PTI, Interpol shuts door on ED for Red Corner Notice against Lalit Modi, Times of India, (02.08.2025, 08:00), Enforcement Directorate: Interpol shuts door on ED for Red Corner notice against Lalit Modi | India News - Times of India

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.