Created Mesh Of Companies All Over Country: Delhi HC Dismisses Bail Petition Of Chinese National Involved In Vivo Money Laundering Scam
The Delhi High Court dismissed the Bail Petition of Chinese National indicted under provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
The Court noted that the Petitioner prima facie deems to be connected with the proceeds of the crime acquired by Vivo Mobile India Pvt Ltd and its state distributor companies through the commission of various scheduled offences.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “On the basis of investigation, it had come to light that he was prima facie one of the main conspirators who, in collusion with other Chinese individuals and entities, had helped in creating a mesh of companies all over the country with a strategic move to have their presence over the country in the garb of business enterprises… He was a part of larger criminal conspiracy and was therefore prima facie connected with the proceeds of crime acquired by Vivo Mobile India Private Limited and its state distributor companies through commission of various schedule offence”.
Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Siddharth Agarwal appeared for the Petitioner and Special Counsel Manish Jain appeared for the the Respondent.
The Petitioner filed a Petition challenging the remand order of the Sessions Court for offences punishable under 3 and 4 of the PMLA and also sought the release of the Petitioner. Per the FIR, the Chinese shareholder of M/s. Grand Prospect International Communication Pvt. Ltd. (GPICPL) had used forged identification documents and falsified addresses, while projecting itself to be a subsidiary company of Vivo Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. (Vivo), China. The complaint was lodged by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA). The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) had sought custody of the Petitioner which was allowed.
The Petitioner contended that he was not arrayed as Accused in the said FIR nor were there any allegations against him.
The Court noted that the Petitioner was an office bearer of Vivo and played a vital role in the incorporation of the Vivo group in the Country. The Court observed that the Petitioner regularly coordinated with multiple state distributors including GPICPL. The Petitioner had also not co-operated with the investigation and failed to submit information regarding his entry into the country or his income during his stay.
“Having also considered the judgment of Hon‟ble Apex Court in case of V. Senthil Balaji (supra), this Court notes that the investigating agency i.e. Directorate of Enforcement had satisfied the learned Sessions Court with adequate material for the need of custody of the accused and the learned Sessions Court had arrived at a conclusion that Section 19 of the Act was duly complied with and it is only thereafter that the accused persons including petitioner had been remanded to the custody of Directorate of Enforcement”, the Court observed.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Guangwen Kuang @ Andrew v Directorate Of Enforcement & Anr (2023 DHC 7526)
