The High Court in London on Wednesday declined to approve the sale of a 4,079-square-foot duplex apartment near Baker Street station, linked to fugitive diamantine Nirav Modi. The apartment was purchased in 2017 by Trident Trust, a company acting on behalf of Modi, who is accused in the ₹16,672 crore Punjab National Bank fraud.
Trident Trust had sought court approval to sell the apartment for £4.25 million, citing sluggish market conditions, down from the previously court-approved floor price of £5.25 million set in March 2024. They also requested permission to borrow £1.5 million against the property to meet liabilities and legal costs.
However, the presiding judge rejected the proposal.
“I do not consider there is evidence of the trustee’s decision-making process,” the judge said, further citing “ambiguity” about the use of the borrowed funds.
“I am not in a position to bless Trident’s proposal,” he added.
The duplex had served as Nirav Modi’s primary residence in London, and is currently vacant. The Enforcement Directorate (ED), which is probing Modi, claims the property is directly connected to proceeds of the PNB scam.
Trident Trust, established in December 2017, lists Purvi Modi (Nirav’s sister) and her children as beneficiaries. Despite this, Nirav Modi has claimed that he loaned ₹6.5 crore to buy the property and argued that proceeds from any sale should accrue to him.
The trust also sought clarity from ED on whether it would unfreeze $13 million in a Swiss bank account. They argued that if the funds were released, it could help cover costs without needing to sell the apartment or borrow money.
Harish Salve, KC, representing the ED, told the court:
“As far as the ED is concerned, we support the sale of the property.”
He also opposed the idea of borrowing against the property due to high 18% interest, stating:
“As long as the property is sitting vacant it does not serve any purpose. But if it can’t be let out, we support the position to sell.”
Nirav Modi, appearing via video from Thameside Prison, has been detained since March 2019. His barrister, James Kinman, argued against the full loan request, suggesting that only £400,000 should be allowed to cover immediate expenses, not £1.5 million.
“The trustee’s decision-making in this regard has been unduly influenced by the convenience of having a large pool of liquid assets from which to pay its own fees and the fees of its lawyers,” Kinman told the court.
The case highlights the legal complexities when high-value real estate tied to financial crimes is held under complex trust structures and falls into vacancy or disrepair.