The Delhi High Court has refused permission to a Chinese national and Vivo executive facing proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to travel to Guangzhou, China, despite his plea that his father was critically ill and on life support. The Court held that humanitarian concerns, though important, could not outweigh the need to ensure the accused remains available for trial.
Background of the Case
The application was filed in Directorate of Enforcement v. MS Vivo Mobile Communication and Ors. Guangwen Kuang @ Andrew, seeking temporary permission to travel to Guangzhou and release of the applicant's passport.
The applicant informed the Court that his 82-year-old father had suffered a severe brain haemorrhage and was on continuous life support in China. He argued that he wanted to be with his father during what could be his final days and assured the Court that he would return to India within the permitted period.
The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) opposed the request, submitting that the applicant was facing prosecution in a money laundering case involving alleged proceeds of crime worth over ₹2.02 lakh crore. It also argued that India has no extradition treaty with China, making it difficult to secure his return if he failed to come back.
Court's Observations
Justice Madhu Jain observed that while the Court was conscious of the applicant's personal circumstances, such considerations could not be the only factor in deciding an application for overseas travel during pending criminal proceedings.
The Court observed,
"Humanitarian considerations alone cannot be determinative. The Court is required to balance such considerations with the interest of justice and the necessity of securing the presence of the accused throughout the proceedings."
The Court also noted that there is neither an extradition treaty nor a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty in criminal matters between India and China. Because of this, even verifying the medical documents submitted by the applicant would require a lengthy diplomatic process.
Referring to an earlier Karnataka High Court judgment, the Court said the legal position in the destination country is also a relevant consideration while assessing whether adequate safeguards exist to ensure the return of a foreign national facing criminal prosecution in India.
The bench further found that the undertaking submitted by the applicant's employer was not legally enforceable and that no assurance had been provided by any Chinese diplomatic authority guaranteeing his return.
Distinguishing the Supreme Court's decision in Wu Chuaannan, the Court said that case involved several safeguards, including a substantial bank guarantee, previous compliance with travel permissions and an assurance from the Chinese Consulate protections that were absent in the present matter.
Decision
After considering the seriousness of the allegations, the large value of the alleged proceeds of crime, the applicant's status as a foreign national, and the absence of any effective mechanism to secure his return, the Delhi High Court declined to grant permission to travel to China.
The Court dismissed the application while clarifying that its observations were limited to the travel request and would not affect the merits of the pending criminal prosecution.
Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. MS Vivo Mobile Communication and Ors. Guangwen Kuang @ Andrew
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 4417/2026
Judge: Justice Madhu Jain
Decision Date: July 9, 2026
-300x169.webp)
-300x169.webp)
