0
Court transcript details undercover operation, digital records, payments and sentencing incentives.
The question that has remained unanswered since Nikhil Gupta pleaded guilty in the United States in February is what made him abandon a long-running fight against the murder-for-hire charges in the Gurpatwant Singh Pannun assassination case and accept a potential sentence of more than two decades in prison.
The full transcript of Gupta’s February 13 guiltyplea hearing now provides an important indication of what his defence team was up against. In laying out the case it would have presented to a jury, the US prosecution cited an undercover operation, a confidential source, a post-arrest statement by Gupta, WhatsApp messages, voice notes, audio and video calls, cellphone evidence, financial evidence linking the funds to India and video of a $15,000 cash payment to the undercover operative in New York.
The transcript does not state that Gupta pleaded guilty because his lawyers concluded that the evidence was overwhelming. But the the crime. evidence described in court, coupled with Gupta’s own sworn admissions, provides a basis to infer that the prospect of taking the case to trial had become considerably more difficult and risky for the defence. For much of the case, Gupta had indicated through his legal proceedings that he intended to contest the charges.
In multiple interactions with this reporter, including during an interview, Gupta had stated that he was being falsely accused and that he would fight these accusations till the last. His case also went through multiple changes in legal representation. The sudden decision to plead guilty therefore raised the question of what had changed. What emerges from the plea transcript is the nature and volume of the evidence the government said it was prepared to present at trial.
At the hearing before Chief Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn, Gupta admitted under oath that in the spring of 2023 he agreed with another person to have an individual murdered in the United States. He also admitted paying $15,000 to another person in furtherance of The judge then established a series of details that placed Gupta in India at the time of the payment and the intended operation in New York. Gupta confirmed that he was in India when the payment was made.
He said the person receiving the money was in Manhattan and that the intended victim was in New York, specifically Queens. The judge then asked Gupta directly whether he knew that the $15,000 was being sent to pay the recipient to commit the murder. Gupta answered yes. The government’s account of the evidence it would have presented at trial goes substantially beyond those admissions. Prosecutors told the court that a confidential source had been approached by Gupta in connection with the murder and that an undercover officer had subsequently acted as the prospective hitman.
They said the government possessed Gupta’s postarrest statement as well as WhatsApp messages, voice notes, audio calls and video calls that prosecutors said demonstrated his involvement in soliciting and orchestrating the proposed killing. The prosecution further told the court that cellphone messages between Gupta and a co-conspirator showed their agreement and plans concerning the intended victim. It said other messages showed that funds used to pay the purported hitman originated in India.
The government also said it possessed video of the $15,000 cash payment being made to the undercover agent in New York City. Taken together, the evidence described by prosecutors represented several different categories of evidence: testimony from an undercover operation, electronic communications, Gupta’s alleged post-arrest statement, financial evidence and visual evidence of the payment. This is significant because prosecutors did not merely tell the magistrate that they possessed evidence against Gupta. They described the evidence they said they would put before a jury if the case went to trial.
The plea also came with a substantial sentencing incentive. The government’s sentencing submission calculated Gupta’s advisory federal Guidelines range at 235 to 293 months, equivalent to approximately 19 years and seven months to 24 years and five months. Judge Netburn specifically told Gupta that the calculation was the government’s position and was not binding on District Judge Victor Marrero.
The government’s calculation was itself based on reductions for acceptance of responsibility. In its sentencing submission, the government said it would recommend a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility and seek an additional onelevel reduction for timely notification of his intention to plead guilty, subject to the conditions set out in the government’s filing.
The difference was substantial. The government’s calculations placed the advisory range at approximately 324 to 405 months before the proposed three-level reduction and 235 to 293 months after it. The reduction therefore represented roughly seven to nine years in the advisory calculation. The range itself remained advisory and did not establish what sentence a judge would have imposed after a trial conviction. The statutory maximum for the three charges to which Gupta pleaded guilty is 40 years. The two murder-forhire counts carry maximum terms of 10 years each, while the money-laundering conspiracy carries a maximum of 20 years. The charges also carried potential supervisedrelease terms and financial penalties.
The government had calculated a possible fine range of $50,000 to $500,000. Gupta had also been told during the plea hearing that by pleading guilty he was giving up his right to a jury trial. He confirmed that he had discussed the advantages and disadvantages of pleading guilty with his lawyer and that he understood the consequences. Judge Netburn also warned Gupta that he could not withdraw his guilty plea merely because the eventual sentence imposed by the district judge turned out to be more severe than the government’s Guidelines calculation.
The judge explained that the Guidelines calculation was not binding on Judge Marrero and that the court could impose a more severe sentence. The judge also warned Gupta that, as a result of his guilty plea, it was “very likely” that he would be ordered removed from the United States and could face other immigration consequences, including being denied admission to the country in the future. Gupta confirmed that he understood those consequences and had discussed them with his lawyer.
Gupta also confirmed that he understood that he would be required to pay a mandatory special assessment of $100 for each of the three counts to which he pleaded guilty, amounting to $300. He denied that anyone had threatened or coerced him into pleading guilty or promised him anything in return for the plea. The transcript therefore does not establish a single stated reason for Gupta’s decision.
But it shows that he entered the plea after being confronted in court with the government’s account of the evidence, while being advised of the consequences of abandoning a jury trial, the sentencing implications and the likelihood of removal from the United States.
The chronology and the evidence disclosed in court provide a basis to infer that, by the time Gupta changed his plea, his defence team was facing a prosecution case that included an undercover operation, extensive digital communications, an alleged post-arrest admission, a financial trail and video evidence of the payment, while Gupta himself was prepared to admit the essential conduct under oath. The decision also potentially reduced his sentencing exposure under the advisory Guidelines through acceptance of responsibility, subject to the government’s stated conditions, while avoiding the uncertainty of a jury trial.
The court record does not establish that this was the sole reason for the plea, but it provides a plausible explanation for why the strategy changed. Gupta’s sentencing is now scheduled for 20 November 2026, at 10 a.m. before District Judge Victor Marrero. The date was moved from 25 September after prosecutors told the court that the intended victim, Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, wanted to participate in the sentencing proceeding but would be outside the United States on the earlier date.