Vivo Money Laundering Case: Delhi HC Bars Chinese Accused from Travelling to China
The Delhi High Court has stayed a trial court order that permitted two Chinese nationals, accused in a Rs 20,000 crore money laundering case linked to Vivo Mobile, to travel to their home country. The court cited the risk of flight and the absence of an extradition treaty between India and China.
The order was passed by Justice Tejas Karia on a plea by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which challenged the trial court's June 17 order allowing the two accused to travel to China. The ED sought an interim stay, arguing that the accused posed a flight risk given the seriousness of the allegations.
The High Court, after hearing submissions, noted that the accused are Chinese nationals facing charges under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Justice Karia observed, 'Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the foreign nationality, and the absence of an extradition treaty or arrangement between India and the People's Republic of China, the apprehension that he may not return to India cannot be said to be unfounded.'
One of the accused, Guangwen Kuang, had sought permission to travel abroad. The court also sought the stand of the two accused and posted the next hearing for July 2.
The money laundering case stems from allegations that Vivo Mobile and its associates were involved in laundering large sums of money. The ED has filed a chargesheet naming the two Chinese nationals, who are facing prosecution for their alleged roles in the offence.
The High Court's order effectively bars them from leaving the country until further orders, pending the final disposal of the ED's plea. The trial court had earlier granted permission, but the High Court has now stayed that order, emphasizing the lack of legal mechanisms to ensure the return of the accused if they were allowed to travel to China.
This case highlights the challenges in prosecuting foreign nationals in India, especially from countries without extradition treaties. The court's decision underscores the need for caution when granting travel permissions to accused persons with international roots, particularly in cases involving large financial crimes.
