NEW DELHI: By admitting to murder-for-hire and money laundering charges, Indian national Nikhil Gupta may have secured a substantial reduction in the 40-year maximum sentence the charges entail through an “acceptance of responsibility” credit. The guilty plea not only reduces his jail-time but also helps him avoid a high-profile trial, besides limiting his trial testimony.Gupta, who has been at a Brooklyn detention centre since his 2024 extradition from Prague, has pleaded guilty before US magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn on three counts: murder-for-hire, conspiracy to commit murder-for-hire and conspiracy to commit money laundering. He is scheduled to be sentenced by US district judge Victor Marrero on May 29, 2026, according to a statement by FBI and DEA.While the combined charges carry a maximum statutory punishment of 40 years in prison, a guilty plea typically triggers a reduction in the offence level under federal sentencing guidelines for “acceptance of responsibility”. Legal experts pointed out this often results in a 20% to 30% reduction in the maximum exposure, though the final decision will rest solely with the sentencing judge.“Gupta is likely to receive a 2- to 3-level reduction, the standard reward for saving the court the time and expense of a trial,” said a source. Going by the US prosecutors’ recommendation, a 20-year sentence or less seems likely, sources said. There could be further reduction if the state files such a motion by May 29 when the sentencing will be announced.Gupta (54) may still have to serve around 80% of the awarded jail time with all mitigating parameters like good behaviour in place. Under US law, if he receives a sentence longer than 12 months, he would be eligible for up to a 15% reduction (roughly two months a year) for good behaviour while incarcerated.Legal experts also said that it was yet to be ascertained whether Gupta’s plea deal included “substantial assistance”, which means he will become a cooperating witness against other individuals. Pleading guilty in a US court does not necessarily require the person to provide information or testify against anyone.
