New Delhi: British government has asked the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to submit a Letter Rogatory by July 22 requesting freezing of Rs 21 crore in the name of the main accused in the Rs 64 crore Bofors payoff scam, Ottavio Quattrocchi.

In a communique sent to the CBI, the British authorities said the bank account had been frozen till July 22, by which time "we expect to receive the request from the Indian government".

While conceding that it was a race against time, the CBI sources said the Letter Rogatory would reach British authorities by July 22, requesting them to freeze the account in a London bank.

The three million Pounds in the London bank account of Quattrocchi had already been frozen by the British authorities pending receipt of a formal request from the Indian government.

However, the freeze could not be permanent according to the British laws and hence the request from the Indian government was necessary by the stipulated time, the sources said.

The probe agency was informed by the Interpol London that they had traced a "bank account in the name of Ottavio Quattrocchi, in which three million Pounds had been stashed".

CBI claimed in its request that it was believed that "The amount of three million Pounds stashed in the bank account was a part of $ 73.43 lakh paid to him (Quattrocchi) by A B Bofors through A E Services."

The British authorities had asked CBI to furnish details of the offence, summary of evidence and an assurance that a confiscation request would soon follow from the government.

The CBI, while doing the needful quickly, also sent a letter requesting for freezing of the bank account as the Interpol London had stated in its message that they had information that the money was likely to be transferred out of London.

Quattrocchi was facing an extradition trial in Malaysia. However, after the CBI's appeal was quashed by the lower court and High Court in Kaula Lumpur, the Italian businessman left that country and was believed to be in Italy.

The CBI, which was being represented by the Malaysian Home Department, went into appeal in the Court of Appeals (Supreme Court) against the verdict, but failed to get a favourable verdict.

The case is now pending before a larger Bench of the Court of Appeals in Malaysia.

PTI