Delhi Court Upholds Fundamental Rights While Granting Bail to Chinese Employee in ₹20,000-Crore Vivo Money Laundering Case

Keywords ; Delhi Court, bail, Chinese employee, Vivo India, money laundering, ₹20,000-crore case, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Article 21, constitutional rights, Enforcement Directorate, shell companies

Delhi Court Stresses Trial Courts’ Role in Protecting Fundamental Rights, Grants Bail to Vivo Employee

In a landmark ruling, a Delhi court emphasized the duty of trial courts to safeguard fundamental rights, irrespective of nationality, while granting bail to a Chinese employee of Vivo India involved in a ₹20,000-crore money laundering case. The court’s decision highlights the balance between constitutional guarantees and stringent provisions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Case Background

Guangwen alias Andrew, an admin manager and HR employee at Vivo India’s Greater Noida factory since 2016, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in October 2023 under charges of money laundering. The ED alleged that Vivo India had routed ₹1 lakh crore outside India between 2014 and 2021 through shell companies to evade taxes.

The chargesheet named several individuals, including Chinese nationals and top executives, claiming that they orchestrated a corporate web to obscure financial irregularities. Andrew was accused of playing a pivotal role in the incorporation of these companies and aiding their operations.

Arguments for Bail

Andrew’s counsel, led by Advocate Arshdeep Singh Khurana, argued that:

• Andrew was not a key managerial figure or involved in Vivo’s financial operations.
• His role was limited to administrative and HR tasks, such as following up on emails and coordinating communications.
• The accused had not received any money apart from his salary.
• The ongoing trial was delayed due to procedural requirements, and Andrew had already spent 13 months in custody.

The defense underscored that under Article 21 of the Constitution, Andrew’s right to a speedy trial and personal liberty were being compromised.

Prosecution’s Opposition

The prosecution, led by special public prosecutors Zoeb Hussain and Manish Jain, contended that Andrew was instrumental in setting up shell companies and liaised with other co-accused to benefit Vivo China. They argued:

• Andrew’s involvement went beyond administrative duties; he supervised statutory processes and facilitated interactions with shell companies.
• His actions were part of a larger scheme to channel illicit funds and evade taxes.

Court’s Observations

Additional Sessions Judge Kiran Gupta, in a 36-page order, emphasized the fundamental principle that “trial courts must ensure constitutional rights are not violated, be it for an Indian citizen or a foreign national.” The judge reiterated that the right to a speedy trial is a core facet of Article 21, noting that undue delay could undermine public confidence in the justice system.

The court cited recent Supreme Court rulings, including the bail granted to AAP leader Manish Sisodia, that emphasized the integration of constitutional principles under Article 21 with the provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA and Section 439 of the CrPC.

While acknowledging the gravity of the charges, the court noted:

• Andrew’s involvement appeared limited, with no evidence of illicit money being deposited in his personal account.
• The voluminous chargesheets and procedural delays made an early trial unlikely, justifying the need for bail.

Bail Conditions

The court imposed strict conditions to mitigate risks:

1. Andrew must surrender his passport and cannot leave the country without court approval.
2. He must reside at his stated address and keep his phone operational.
3. He cannot contact or influence co-accused persons.
4. He must cooperate fully with the investigation and refrain from any criminal activity.

Significance of the Ruling

This ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting constitutional rights even in cases involving stringent laws like the PMLA. It highlights that trial courts are pivotal in safeguarding individual liberties and ensuring justice is not delayed. The judgment serves as a reminder that procedural fairness and human rights must coexist with legal accountability in India’s justice system.

The case also brings attention to the ED’s ongoing scrutiny of foreign corporations operating in India, raising broader questions about regulatory oversight and corporate compliance in the country.

Stay tuned for live updates on the rupee’s movement and real-time business news on Kanishk Social Media—your go-to source for comprehensive stock market and legal news.