Vivo Executive Moves Supreme Court After Delhi HC Denies Travel To China Over ₹20,000 Cr. PMLA Case

On 17 August, Guangwen Kuang, a executive of Vivo Mobile Communications filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court's refusal to permit him to travel to Guangzhou, China, where his 82-year-old father is ill.

The Delhi High Court's order dated 9 July 2026 refused permission citing the alleged proceeds of crime, his status as a Chinese national and the absence of an extradition treaty or Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty between India and China. Justice Madhu Jain passed the order. It had observed:

“Having regard to the seriousness of the allegations, the enormous magnitude of the alleged proceeds of crime, the applicant's status as a foreign national, the absence of an extradition treaty between India and China, and the absence of any effective safeguard capable of ensuring the applicant's return to India, this Court is not satisfied that permission to travel abroad deserves to be granted."

Kuang, who is facing prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), had sought temporary permission to visit Guangzhou solely on humanitarian grounds. He told the High Court that he had consistently cooperated with the Enforcement Directorate's investigation, regularly appeared before the Special Court and had never breached any conditions. He also offered an undertaking through his employer to return to India.

The Enforcement Directorate opposed the request, arguing that Kuang is a Chinese national facing prosecution in a case involving alleged proceeds of crime of over Rs. 20,000 crore. It submitted that India and China do not have an extradition treaty, making it difficult to secure his presence if he failed to return. The agency also argued that the undertaking offered by his employer was neither sufficiently specific nor legally enforceable.

Kuang relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Wu Chuaannan v. State of Chhattisgarh, where foreign nationals facing criminal proceedings were permitted to travel after safeguards including a bank guarantee, an employer undertaking and an assurance from the Chinese Consulate.

The High Court, however, found that such safeguards were absent in his case. It also noted that India and China do not have a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty in criminal matters, making verification of his father's medical records difficult and potentially time consuming. While acknowledging the humanitarian circumstances, the Bench held that they could not override the need to secure the accused's presence in India.

Kuang's SLP is yet to be listed before the Supreme Court.