Delhi High Court refuses Vivo accused travel to China in ED case

The Enforcement Action

The Delhi High Court has declined to let a foreign national accused in the Enforcement Directorate's money-laundering case against Vivo Mobile Communication travel abroad while the prosecution is pending. In an order dated 9 July 2026 in CRL.M.C. 4417/2026, the court (Justice Madhu Jain) dismissed an application by Guangwen Kuang, also referred to in the record as Andrew, for permission to travel to Guangzhou, China. Kuang had sought release of his passport and short-term travel on the ground that his 82-year-old father was critically ill following a cerebral haemorrhage.

The application arises within a wider case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Per the order, the applicant faces "prosecution under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act" in a matter the ED values at proceeds of crime of approximately Rs 2,02,41,17,72,292.89, or about Rs 20,241 crore. The court weighed the humanitarian plea against the risk that the applicant, a Chinese national, might not return, and concluded that "no case for grant of permission to travel to Guangzhou, China is made out".

Two features drove the refusal. The order records that "no extradition treaty exists between India and the People's Republic of China" and that there is "no Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty in criminal matters" between the two countries, which the court said left it unable to verify the medical documents or to secure the applicant's return. An undertaking by his employer to ensure his return was, the court held, not legally enforceable against a private company. The matter was listed for further proceedings on 14 September 2026. This report concerns only what the court has ordered; it does not decide the underlying charges.

How the Scheme Worked

The travel application sits inside a larger investigation that remains at the prosecution stage. According to reported details of the ED's prosecution complaint, filed on 6 December 2023, the agency alleges that persons connected to Vivo's India operations routed large sums out of the country through a web of related entities, and it pegs the proceeds of crime at the figure the High Court order repeats, approximately Rs 20,241 crore. The trial court is reported to have taken cognizance and arraigned Kuang as an accused on 20 December 2023. These are allegations that the ED must still prove; nothing in the travel order tests their merits.

What the official record sets out in detail is the procedural chronology of the travel dispute itself. Earlier, in June 2026, the High Court had stayed a trial-court order that would have permitted two Chinese nationals, including Kuang, to travel to China, on the prosecution's submission that they posed a flight risk in the absence of an extradition treaty. The application under the present petition was then taken up afresh.

The order sheets show the steps. On 2 July 2026 the court issued notice on the travel application, took the father's medical documents on record, and directed that they be verified and that the employer's undertaking be placed before it. On 6 July 2026 the matter was heard again and listed for orders. On 9 July 2026 the court delivered its refusal. Through this sequence the applicant's passport remained with the authorities, and the court declined to release it.

The characterisations of the money trail above are the ED's allegations as recorded in reporting of its complaint, not findings of the court. The 9 July order decides one narrow question, whether an accused facing a money-laundering prosecution should be allowed to leave the country before trial, and answers it in the negative.

The Law Invoked

The underlying prosecution proceeds under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), the statute the order names. The PMLA deals with the handling of the "proceeds of crime" generated from a scheduled predicate offence, and it allows the ED to investigate, attach property, and file a prosecution complaint before a designated special court. A prosecution complaint under the PMLA is an allegation to be tested at trial, not a conviction.

The travel application itself was moved invoking the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the successor provision to Section 482 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure. That section preserves the High Court's power to pass orders necessary to secure the ends of justice, and it is the route through which accused persons commonly seek relief such as passport release or travel permission during a pending prosecution.

The order does not enumerate specific sub-sections of the PMLA, and this report does not supply any. It is enough to note that the matter is a money-laundering prosecution in which the question before the court was procedural: whether to relax a travel restriction on an accused, not whether the accused is guilty.

What Happens Next

The refusal does not end the applicant's options. An order declining travel or passport release can ordinarily be challenged before a higher forum, and a fresh application may be moved if circumstances change; the High Court has listed the petition for 14 September 2026. The prosecution, meanwhile, continues before the trial court, which will proceed in the usual way.

For the wider case, the standard path applies. A prosecution complaint under the PMLA goes to a special court, which decides on charge and then trial; convictions and acquittals are appealable. Any attachment of property in a PMLA matter must be confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority and can be contested before the Appellate Tribunal and the courts. None of these steps has decided the guilt of any accused in this matter.

Because this is a criminal prosecution at the pre-trial stage, the presumption of innocence governs. A prosecution complaint contains allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. The 9 July order should be read for what it is: a decision on travel and flight risk, nothing more.

What It Means

For readers, the practical signal is narrow but useful. Indian courts treat the absence of an extradition treaty and of a mutual legal-assistance framework as material when an accused who is a foreign national asks to leave the country mid-trial. That is a recurring theme in economic-offence cases, and it explains why passport impounding and travel refusals are common features of money-laundering proceedings long before any verdict.

It is worth separating two things that headlines often blur. A large "proceeds of crime" figure in a prosecution complaint is the agency's estimate of the amount in question, not money proven to have been stolen from the public, and not a sum any depositor or retail investor has lost. The number frames the seriousness of the allegation; it does not establish it.

If a company you deal with is named in an ED matter, the calm response is to check the primary record rather than the label. Court orders in such cases are often available on public databases, and the procedural stage, investigation, complaint, charge, or conviction, tells you how far the matter has actually travelled. Treat an accusation as an accusation until a court says otherwise.

FAQ

Does this mean the people named are guilty?

No. A prosecution complaint contains allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. The 9 July 2026 order decided only whether an accused could travel abroad during the pending case. It made no finding on whether any offence was committed.

What exactly did the Delhi High Court order?

The court dismissed an application by Guangwen Kuang for permission to travel to Guangzhou, China, and declined to release his passport. It held that his status as a foreign national, combined with the absence of an extradition treaty and a mutual legal-assistance treaty between India and China, meant his return could not be assured.

How large is the alleged amount?

The order records proceeds of crime of approximately Rs 2,02,41,17,72,292.89, or about Rs 20,241 crore, as alleged by the Enforcement Directorate. This is the agency's estimate in its prosecution complaint. It is an allegation the ED must prove at trial, not an established loss.

Can the order be appealed?

Generally, an order refusing travel or passport release can be challenged before a higher court, and a fresh application can be made if circumstances change. The High Court has listed the petition for 14 September 2026. This report does not predict any outcome.

Where can I read the official order?

The order dated 9 July 2026 in CRL.M.C. 4417/2026 is available on Indian Kanoon. The matter was surfaced through the Delhi High Court weekly round-up published by LiveLaw.

This report is based on the official Delhi High Court order dated 9 July 2026 in Directorate of Enforcement v. Vivo Mobile Communication (CRL.M.C. 4417/2026). It was surfaced via the Delhi High Court weekly round-up published by LiveLaw.