RGICS LEGISLATIVE BRIEF- The Fugitive Economic Offenders Bill, 2018

The Fugitive Economic Offenders Bill, 2018 was introduced to prevent financial criminals from escaping justice by fleeing the country. It allows the government to seize assets of offenders if they refuse to return for trial. While the bill strengthens legal action, it does little to simplify extradition, places an unfair burden on third parties, and has vague provisions that could lead to legal disputes. Critics argue that while well-intentioned, the bill may not be as effective as expected.

The bill was introduced after high-profile fraud cases like the Punjab National Bank (PNB) scam, where Nirav Modi and Mehul Choksi fled India to avoid prosecution. It allows authorities to declare an individual a fugitive economic offender, leading to the confiscation of their assets, including benami properties. However, the law applies only to cases involving ₹100 crore or more, raising concerns about why smaller financial crimes are excluded.

One of the most debated provisions is “blanket disentitlement”, which bars offenders from defending any civil claims in Indian courts, potentially violating fair trial rights. Another issue is that innocent third parties, such as buyers of confiscated property, must prove they acquired it legally, making real estate transactions riskier.

While the bill allows seizing foreign assets, it does not explain how India will enforce this internationally. Extradition remains slow and complicated, as seen in cases where UK courts rejected India’s requests due to concerns over Indian prison conditions.

To effectively tackle economic crimes, India needs stronger global cooperation, clear legal safeguards, and a faster, more efficient extradition process. Without these, the bill may not be enough to truly deter economic offenders.

Keywords: Fugitive Economic Offender, Confiscation, Extradition, Proceeds of Crime, Special Court, Burden of Proof, Benami Property, White Collar Crime, Legislative Gaps, Financial Fraud