A man who was nicknamed the “con queen of Hollywood” after allegedly impersonating movie executives and defrauding hundreds of people has lost a court bid to challenge his extradition to the United States.
Hargobind Tahilramani is accused of conning over 300 victims – including actors, screenwriters and photographers – over the course of seven years.
Tahilramani would allegedly convince entertainment industry professionals to travel to Indonesia at their own expense for non-existent projects.
They were then allegedly charged exorbitant expenses which were never repaid.
The 45-year-old is wanted in the US to face eight charges, including conspiracy to commit wire fraud, two counts of wire fraud and five counts of aggravated identity theft.
He faced extradition proceedings in 2022, and in June 2023 Chief Magistrate Paul Goldspring approved Tahilramani’s extradition, which was later ordered by the Home Secretary.
Tahilramani brought an appeal to the High Court in London in April.
Judge Mr Justice Sweeting dismissed the bid in a decision on Tuesday.
Tahilramani’s lawyers argued that the chief magistrate had been wrong to allow his extradition, considering his mental health and risk of suicide.
They also said the judge was wrong to find that extraditing Tahilramani would be compatible with his human rights given the risk of inhuman and degrading treatment, including sexual assault.
Mr Justice Sweeting said in a 28-page ruling: “The applicant’s case is that he would almost certainly face confinement alone in protective custody due to his sexual orientation and effeminate demeanour.”
The judge found that any differences in treatment Tahilramani could face in prison would be aimed at preventing inter-prisoner violence, and that the previous judge was right to conclude that it “would not be oppressive due to his physical or mental condition to extradite him”.
Mr Justice Sweeting concluded: “The differential treatment claimed by the applicant, even if established, would relate to protective measures taken due to vulnerability, and not as a result of a discriminatory intent or practice based on his sexual orientation.
“Such measures … are not inhuman or degrading and serve a legitimate purpose within the US penal system.”
