Vivo Money Laundering Case: Delhi HC Dismisses Plea Alleging Illegal Custody Of Accused

The Delhi High Court has recently rejected petitions alleging the judicial custody of the Managing Director of Lava International mobile company, Hari Om Rai, and 2 other accused in a money laundering case involving smartphone maker Vivo was illegal.

A bench led by Justice Suresh Kumar Kait rejected the habeas corpus petitions filed by Rai’s son and the co-accused, namely Chinese national Guangwen alias Andrew Kuang and CA Nitin Garg.

A habeas corpus petition is filed to direct the court to produce a person missing or illegally detained.

Individuals who believe they have been unlawfully detained by law enforcement officials can file a writ of habeas corpus with the Supreme Court or the relevant high court.

The petitioners argued that there was no judicial order for the accused’s remand in judicial custody on December 7, asserting that their detention in Tihar jail was not in accordance with the law.

The bench, including Justice Shalinder Kaur, dismissed the submissions, stating that there was no “break” in their custody, and the trial court appropriately issued production warrants for the next hearing.

The court noted that the petitioners, after initial remand in ED custody, were regularly sent to jail under judicial remand until December 7.

The court concluded in an order dated December 19, “The judicial custody of the petitioners was expiring on 07.12.2023; however, the peculiar and distinct facts and circumstances as emerging from present writs are that the petitioners were not produced before the learned ASJ (additional sessions judge)-04. The learned ASJ-04 has rightly issued production warrants against the petitioners on 07.12.2023 for production of the petitioners, and the petitioners remain in lawful custody of learned ASJ-04. The submissions and views expressed merit no substance in the writ petitions. The same shall, accordingly, stand dismissed.”

Trial court acknowledged the charge sheet filed by the ED against Vivo-India and others in the money laundering case, including the petitioners, and issued summons.

The chargesheet, filed earlier this month, alleges violations under criminal sections of the PMLA.

The ED contends that the accused’s activities allowed Vivo-India to make wrongful gains detrimental to the economic sovereignty of the country.

Last July, the anti-money laundering agency raided Vivo-India and associated persons, claiming to have uncovered a significant money laundering racket involving Chinese nationals and multiple Indian companies.

At that time, the ED alleged that Rs 62,476 crore was “illegally” transferred by Vivo-India to China to evade taxes in India. The company denied the allegations, emphasizing its commitment to ethical principles and legal compliance.