Dear Editor,
AZRUDDIN Mohamed, the U.S. indicted MP, has made a litany of public statements recently, intending to distort his extradition proceedings.
In a recent Facebook address, the aspiring Opposition Leader sought to compare his extradition proceedings to those of Vitesh Guptar, implying that Guptar received protection and preferential treatment from the Government. Basic analysis shows otherwise.
In 2019, Interpol issued a Red Notice for Guptar, alleging aggravated conspiracy to commit international drug trafficking on behalf of the Ndrangheta organisation. He later entered Guyana, where he lived until his capture in 2024.
Extradition proceedings commenced with Italy’s Request to Proceed before the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court. Magistrate Faith McGusty refused to commit to extradite. Between March 19 and March 28 of 2024, when court was adjourned, Vitesh Guptar spent his days in prison pending the decision of the Magistrate. No paltry bail of $150,000 GYD. No access to his residence, businesses and, most certainly, no access to our country’s Legislature.
Guyana and Italy do not share an extradition treaty. Additionally, Mohamed cited his insurance policies being suspended and bank accounts closed without the same being done to Guptar; a deliberately false comparison excluding the gravity of OFAC Magnitsky Sanctions relating to association, goods and services. If the PPP were truly protecting Guptar, why was his lawyer Mr. Ronald Daniels, a National Candidate for APNU in the 2025 Elections?
Contrast this with the apparent unlimited access enjoyed by the WIN Leader. Of the two men, only one has been able to enter Parliament with an uninsured vehicle, rack up alleged traffic violations and avoid jail time during extradition proceedings with remarkably low bail. So who really has been receiving preferential treatment? Certainly not Vitesh Guptar.
This latest misrepresentation of the extradition proceedings is but the latest episode of an ensuing circus of disinformation. The primary legal battle taking place in the High Court no longer appears to be about insufficient evidence to extradite, but against the idea of extradition itself. His legal team hasn’t reposed confidence in his innocence; instead they’re adamant that the extradition proceedings will go “nowhere”, without a chance to prove his innocence in Florida.
Curiously, both Azruddin, his family and the WIN party haven’t mounted any serious rebuttal to the 11-count Florida indictments. The elder Mohamed asserted on January 10 that he was a victim of “malicious, political persecution.” Outside the Parliament Buildings after an extradition hearing, Azruddin was asked by Prime News if the evidence in Florida was “unbelievable” to which he agreed and retorted: “What proof is there?” Outside of these interactions, there hasn’t been any specific response to the 11-count indictments of wire and mail fraud. In several recent press statements, the WIN party affirmed their position of the extradition as being “politically motivated” with confidence that the indictments will fail, yet no significant comment on those very indictments.
In the Mail Fraud Indictment, an affidavit from Mr. Ronald Wayne Potts Jr. of International Speed Consulting states that he sold the 2020 Lamborghini Roadster to Mohamed for 75,000 USD. Several invoices show costs charged for “Marketing & Advertising” (250,000 USD) and a “Race Team Management Fee” spanning 2020 & 2021 (350,000 USD). These figures total 675,000 USD, similar to a 695,000 USD figure on an invoice for the same vehicle from the same International Speed Consulting Inc. This invoice, confirming no Outstanding Balance, was supplied by the US Justice Department. Did Potts actually sell the vehicle for $695,000 and then falsify several invoices to divide the cost into various services to undervalue the vehicle? Azruddin even gloated to Influencer “Chris Must List” in a February 2025 YouTube video that the Lamborghini cost him “A Million” USD. Something doesn’t quite add up.
I hold no brief for Azruddin Mohamed, his family, nor the WIN party. But if he is confident in his innocence then I challenge him to step away from curated Facebook monologues and address the indictments directly at a press conference; for greater scrutiny, clarity and coverage. If the indictments are indeed baseless, then directness and scrutiny should pose no difficulty. Until then, this silence remains telling.