U.S. prosecutors again indict Indian diplomat Khobragade

[okaawhatever]

Source: Reuters

(Reuters) - A grand jury has returned a new indictment against Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade for visa fraud, two days after a U.S. federal judge dismissed a similar indictment because she had diplomatic immunity.

Khobragade's arrest last December and subsequent strip search drew outrage in India, causing a major diplomatic rift that ended when the United States granted her diplomatic immunity and then requested her departure from the country in January.

U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled on Wednesday that Khobragade, who was India's deputy consul-general in New York, had diplomatic immunity when she sought on January 9 to dismiss the indictment, and thus could not be prosecuted for allegedly underpaying her nanny.

A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan said then that the ruling did not bar prosecutors from seeking a new indictment based on the same charges.



Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/14/us-india-usa-diplomat-idUSBREA2D1KQ20140314

[leftynyc]

1. Anyone know if diplomatic immunity

covers visa fraud? I wouldn't think so but I think it's ridiculous it covers parking tickets.

[cvoogt]

2. I find it interesting

that no one has yet been indicted for strip searching her. I also think the visa fraud deserves to be pursued, though.

[okaawhatever]

3. Strip search is part of the deal, and it wasn't a full strip search. We don't treat people like that

any differently here. (we're not supposed to). Part of the reason for that is to check for anything someone could hurt themselves or other with before they put them in. There will be no charges against the jailers for the search. The charges would be more likely to come if they didn't search her.

[hack89]

4. The strip search was not a crime. nt

[cosmicone]

5. Taxpayer dollars are being wasted

to feed Preet Bharara's libido. Same acts, same charges, same immunity and they will have the same fate.

[okaawhatever]

6. I disagree that it is for his ego but I think this is some kind of legal maneuvering. I thought the

general idea was that she would leave the country and wouldn't have to face the consequences, but she wouldn't be granted a new visa to come back to the US. I think the additional charges were to keep her from coming back to the US?

[cosmicone]

7. Which is mean-spirited then

if she had immunity and the case was dismissed, to file new charges just to prevent her from coming back when she has an American husband and American children is done just out of spite. Our judicial system shouldn't work that way.

[okaawhatever]

8. the problem is she didn't have immunity. they gave her immunity after the fact. What happens is, she

is charged because she didn't have immunity when she did it Now that she's working for the UN (which is a higher level of immunity) the charges don't get dropped, but we wouldn't be able to arrest her for failure to appear.

Don't blame the government she's the one who forged Visa docs so she didn't have to pay her nanny. She's the one who went and got immunity so she wouldn't have to go to jail. She put herself in this situation. What do you suggest? Let her walk on visa fraud?

[cosmicone]

9. It is still a waste of taxpayer dollars for an exercise in futility

Prosecutors can and frequently choose not to file charges and let things be. That is what prosecutorial discretion is about.

Preet Bharara's testosterone spikes when he is charging and convicting South Asians though. I haven't seen him charge a single person from Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley or Lehman -- all of whom were eyeballs deep in the subprime crisis resulting in misery for millions. Yeah, the main priority is a disputed case of an underpaid nanny -- it is really really important!