The Delhi High Court in the case Mr. Guangwen Kuang @ Andrew v. Directorate Of Enforcement And Anr observed and has upheld the order of trail court remanding a Chinese national to three days of Enforcement Directorate’s custody in a money laundering case which is registered against smartphone manufacturer Vivo.
The bench headed by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the case observed and ha stated that the trial court order takes into account the mandate of compliance of provisions of Section 19 and section 45 of the PMLA.
It has also been stated by the said courts that the grounds of arrest and the remand application clearly mentioned the involvement of Chinese national Guangwen Kuang alias Andrew from the very initial stage i.e. the incorporation of the companies in question throughout the country which had ultimately resulted in acquiring proceeds of crime and siphoning off the same.
The bench of Justice Sharma in the case observed and has stated that the impugned order took note of the allegations leveled against the accused persons as well as the investigation conducted so far by ED. Thus, the court also stated that the trial court perused the written grounds of arrest placed on record and also took note of the fact that the grounds of arrest in writing were supplied to the accused persons in compliance of the Supreme Court judgment in Pankaj Bansal case.
In the present case, the FIR was registered against M/s. Grand Prospect International Communication Pvt. Ltd in 2021 on the basis of the complaint lodged by the Union Ministry of Corporate Affairs.
It was also alleged before the court that some Chinese shareholders of the entity used forged identification documents and falsified addresses, while projecting itself to be a subsidiary company of Vivo.
The ED in the case alleged that the company was engaged in the business of distribution and providing aftersales services of Vivo mobile phones and accessories in Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir and Leh and Ladakh.
Adding to it, it was also alleged that since the incorporation of the company in 2014 till December of 2021, it had received total credits of approximately Rs.1487 crores in its bank account through its business activities and approximately Rs.1200 crores were being transferred to the accounts of Vivo Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. The allegations made against the Chinese national were that he played a pivotal role in incorporation of entire setup of Vivo group companies in India and that he regularly coordinated with other companies in this regard.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case stated that the said 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 has also been extended by the trial court that the ED custody by three more days of the Chinese national and three other accused persons in the case.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the plea.
The counsel, Advocates, Mr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mr. Siddharth Agarwal, Senior Advocates with Mr. Mudit Jain, Mr. Aashul Agarwal, Mr. Kunal Dewan, Mr. Aarohi Mikkilinani, Ms. Shradhanjali Parida, Mr. A. Singhvi, Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, Mr. Vishwajeet, Ms. Rudrali, Ms. Mahima Malhotra and Mr. Ayush Goswami appeared for the petitioner. The counsel, Mr. Manish Jain, Special counsel for R-1/E.D represented the respondent.