Vivo PMLA Case: Delhi HC upholds Chinese National’s ED Remand [Read Order]

The Delhi High Court upheld the Chinese National’s, Guangwen Kuang @ Andrew, remand to Enforcement Directorate in the much celebrated Vivo Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2003 (PMLA) Case.

The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) has been filed on behalf of petitioner seeking setting aside of impugned remand order dated 10.10.2023, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-05, New Delhi (‘Sessions Court’) in case titled Directorate of Enforcement vs. Nitin Garg & Ors for offence punishable under Section 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’), and for directing the release of petitioner.

In brief, the allegations in the said FIR are that certain Chinese shareholders of GPICPL had used forged identification documents and falsified addresses, while projecting itself to be a subsidiary company of Vivo, China. It is alleged that the company GPICPL had been incorporated by Zhengshen Ou and Zhang Jie, both Chinese nationals, with the help of one Chartered Accountant namely Nitin Garg who had facilitated the incorporation of the company by witnessing their signatures and their documents.

It was also alleged that the said company is not reported to be subsidiary of Vivo in official records, whereas the company publicly projects itself to be a subsidiary of Vivo. Since the offences under sections 120B/417/420/471 of IPC are scheduled offences under Part A of PMLA, a prima facie case for commission of offence of money laundering under Section 3 of PMLA, punishable under Section 4 of PMLA, was alleged to have been made out against the accused persons and the case was taken up for investigation under the provisions of PMLA.

By way of present petition, the petitioner has only challenged the impugned order dated 10.10.2023 passed by the Sessions Court vide which the petitioner, along with other accused persons, was remanded to the custody of Directorate of Enforcement for a period of 03 days, primarily on the ground that the same fails to follow the ratio laid down in case of Pankaj Bansal.

A Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that “In these circumstances, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order of remand dated 10.10.2023 challenged before this Court as the same takes into account the mandate of compliance of provisions of Section 19 of PMLA as well as Section 45 of PMLA. It is also clear from the order and the remand application itself that the reasons and grounds for arrest of the present petitioner are not merely confined to their non-cooperation and evasive replies, but also record the grounds as discussed in the preceding paragraphs of this order.”

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates