Delhi Court Grants Bail to Chinese National in Vivo India Money Laundering Case

Delhi Court Grants Bail to Chinese National in Vivo India 

Money Laundering Case

In a significant development in the Vivo India money laundering case, Delhi’s Patiala House Court on November 11 granted regular bail to Guangwen alias Andrew, a Chinese national and administrative manager at Vivo India, who was previously detained under charges of money laundering related to alleged proceeds of crime worth ₹20,000 crores. Guangwen had been in judicial custody since October 2023 and was released on bail under specific terms and conditions.

Court’s Decision and Reasoning for Bail

Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Kiran Gupta presided over the bail application, assessing the overall circumstances, including the period of custody, prior conduct, and existing evidence against Andrew. The court emphasized that although Andrew was employed at Vivo India, no substantial personal financial gain was reported in his accounts, apart from his legitimate salary. In granting bail, the court noted that the trial proceedings had not yet commenced, and Andrew had already spent an extended period in custody.

The court’s bail order stated: 

> "Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances; the fact that the applicant is one of the employees and nothing has been received in his account except salary; the period of custody undergone; and that the trial is yet to commence..."

Bail Conditions Imposed

While granting bail, the court stipulated several conditions to ensure compliance and prevent potential interference with the case. The bail conditions include:

1. Personal Bond: Guangwen is required to submit a personal bond worth ₹2 lakhs with two sureties of the same amount.

2. Passport Surrender: He must immediately surrender his passport and cannot leave the country without the court’s explicit permission.

3. Residence and Communication: Andrew is mandated to reside at his registered address, keep his mobile phone operational at all times, and inform the investigating officer and court promptly of any change in his address.

4. Non-Interference Clause: The court also directed him not to communicate directly or indirectly with co-accused persons, witnesses, or attempt to influence or tamper with evidence.

Arguments from the Defence

The defence counsel highlighted several factors in their arguments for granting bail:

- Role and Employment: Andrew, they argued, was employed as an HR and Admin Manager since 2016 and was not involved in the financial dealings of Vivo India.

- Compliance with Laws: They stated that he was working under a legitimate employment visa issued by Indian authorities and was neither a shareholder nor a managerial stakeholder with access to or influence over the company’s finances.

- Evidence and Documentation: With over 16 trunks of documents and approximately 527 witnesses cited in the case, the defence suggested the trial could be delayed, meaning prolonged detention would be unreasonable.

- Lack of Direct Involvement: According to the defence, there was no conclusive evidence directly linking Andrew to the money laundering activities, and any emails showing coordination were from a time before he joined Vivo India in 2016.

The defence also emphasized that a supplementary prosecution complaint had recently named additional accused individuals, further reducing the likelihood of immediate trial commencement.

Enforcement Directorate’s Counterarguments

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) strongly opposed the bail, citing Andrew’s alleged role as a key player in Vivo India’s financial network. The ED argued:

- Key Role: The ED claimed that Andrew, alongside other Chinese nationals, was instrumental in structuring Vivo India’s operational network across India.

- Alleged Money Laundering Scheme: According to the ED, Vivo China, the parent company, through its employees (including Andrew) set up a complex corporate structure across India under Vivo India. This network allegedly enabled the company to funnel ₹20,000 crores out of the country to entities in Hong Kong, Samoa, and the British Virgin Islands.

- Section 24 of PMLA: The ED argued that there is a presumption of guilt under Section 24 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), requiring the defendant to prove otherwise.

The ED requested that Andrew’s bail application be dismissed, asserting that he failed to meet the “twin conditions” and “triple test” required to secure bail.

Legal Background and Allegations Against Vivo India

The money laundering case against Vivo India centers on accusations that the company’s senior officials and employees structured a complex network of companies in India, allegedly to facilitate illegal fund transfers to overseas accounts controlled by Vivo China. The Enforcement Directorate has argued that this network of companies, functioning under a corporate veil, aided the systematic acquisition and transfer of substantial funds to other countries without valid justification.

Court’s Rationale and Key Observations

Judge Kiran Gupta’s decision to grant bail appears to rest on a nuanced examination of Andrew’s role within Vivo India. Key observations from the court included:

- Non-Managerial Role: The court noted that Andrew held a non-managerial role with limited influence over the company’s financial dealings.

- Conduct and History: There was no record of past misconduct, and the court found no evidence of a criminal history that would necessitate prolonged detention.

- Volume of Evidence: Given the voluminous evidence and the extensive list of witnesses, the court acknowledged that a lengthy trial was likely, further justifying the decision to release Andrew on bail.

Conclusion and Implications

The decision to grant bail to Andrew highlights the delicate balance the judiciary must maintain between protecting individual rights and ensuring effective enforcement of anti-money laundering laws. While the ED argued for strict measures against alleged offenders, the court’s decision underscores the importance of assessing each individual’s role and the evidence available against them before determining detention periods.

This case also draws attention to the challenges in monitoring multinational corporations operating in India, particularly concerning regulatory compliance and financial transparency. With this bail order, the court has paved the way for a fair trial where the alleged involvement of Andrew, and others, in the large-scale money laundering case will be closely examined.