AgustaWestland Chopper Scam | UK-Based Businessman Withdraws Plea In Supreme Court Against ED Warrants

The Supreme Court recently allowed former MGF Group chairman Shravan Gupta, who is accused in a money laundering related to the AgustaWestland VVIP chopper case, to withdraw his plea challenging non-bailable warrants (NBWs) issued against him by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED).

Gupta has been abroad since leaving India in November 2019. Earlier, the ED has said that it is pursuing extradition proceedings against him, and an Interpol Red Notice was issued against him in August 2023.

The ED has alleged that Gupta in received ₹24 crore in proceeds of crime laundered through foreign companies as part of the laundering of alleged kickbacks in the AgustaWestland VVIP helicopter deal. It has further stated that Gupta failed to join the investigation despite repeated summonses after leaving India in 2019.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta dismissed Gupta's special leave petition as withdrawn after Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Sidharth Luthra appearing for him sought to withdraw it.

The petition challenged a November 4, 2025 judgment of the Delhi High Court refusing to quash the “open-ended” non-bailable warrants issued against Gupta during the ED's investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

Before the High Court, Gupta contended that he had cooperated with the investigation by responding to every summons and furnishing all documents sought by the ED. He submitted that after travelling to the United Kingdom in November 2019 for business purposes, he could not return because of health issues and later the COVID-19 pandemic, but had repeatedly expressed his willingness to participate in the investigation through video conferencing. He argued that the investigation was largely documentary in nature and did not require his physical presence.

Opposing the plea, the ED submitted that bank records established that part of the proceeds of crime received by Interstellar Technologies Ltd., Mauritius, had been transferred to companies controlled by Gupta. The agency further stated that Guido Haschke, one of the alleged middlemen in the AgustaWestland deal, had served as a non-executive director of EMAAR MGF Land Ltd., where Gupta was the Managing Director.

ED contended that Gupta needed to be confronted with documentary and digital evidence collected during the investigation. According to the ED, Gupta ignored nine summonses issued after he left India in November 2019, making his custodial interrogation necessary.

ED submitted that Gupta and his family members have applied for citizenship of Commonwealth of Dominica and by doing so, he is intentionally and deliberately evading the summons, and hampering the ongoing investigations under PMLA, scuttling the proceedings against himself on account of non-appearance.

Rejecting Gupta's plea, the High Court observed that the principal question was whether the trial court was justified in concluding that Gupta was wilfully evading the investigation despite his offer to participate through video conferencing.

The High Court observed that while non-bailable warrants directly affect personal liberty and must therefore be issued with caution, courts are empowered to issue such warrants during investigation where an accused deliberately evades the investigative process. The Court held that a Magistrate is competent to issue non-bailable warrants during investigation where circumstances so warrant.

Applying those principles, the Court concluded that Gupta's conduct amounted to wilful evasion. It noted that although documents had been furnished through authorised representatives, Gupta had failed to appear personally despite nine summonses and that the ED required his physical presence to confront him with voluminous documentary and digital evidence gathered during the investigation.

The High Court also rejected Gupta's contention that his willingness to join the investigation through video conferencing amounted to cooperation. It observed that the facility of video conferencing was introduced to facilitate court proceedings and recording of evidence and did not confer an accused with the right to dictate the manner in which an investigation should be conducted.

The Court held that where custodial interrogation and confrontation with evidence were considered necessary, physical appearance could not be substituted by virtual participation. It further noted that the investigation, registered in 2014, had remained stalled in respect of Gupta because of his insistence on appearing only through video conferencing.

The High Court dismissed Gupta's petition. With the withdrawal of the special leave petition before the Supreme Court, the High Court judgment upholding the non-bailable warrants remains undisturbed.

Case: Shravan Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 66063/2025