Vivo PMLA Money Laundering: Delhi HC Shuts Door on Humanitarian Travel Plea
On July 14, 2026, Justice Madhu Jain of the Delhi High Court refused permission to Guangwen Kuang alias Andrew — a Chinese national and accused in the Vivo PMLA money laundering case — to travel to Guangzhou, China to visit his critically ill father.
According to LiveLaw, Justice Madhu Jain held that humanitarian considerations cannot override the need to secure the presence of an accused facing PMLA proceedings.
Background: How We Got Here
Guangwen Kuang alias Andrew served as an admin manager at Vivo Mobile India. He was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on October 10, 2023, in connection with a sprawling money laundering investigation targeting Vivo Mobile India Private Limited and its State Distributor Companies.
The ED filed its prosecution complaint on December 6, 2023 before the trial court under Sections 3, 4, and 70 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The trial court took cognisance on December 20, 2023 and formally arraigned Kuang as an accused, as reported by ANI.
- Kuang was granted bail in November 2024, following more than a year in custody after his October 2023 arrest.
- On April 29, 2026, the trial court quashed the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against Kuang — an order the ED subsequently challenged before the High Court, as reported by Asianet Newsable.
- A second Chinese national, Weigang Wang, is also an accused in the same Vivo money laundering case.
The ED has alleged that Vivo Mobile India Private Limited and its State Distributor Companies acquired proceeds of crime amounting to approximately Rs 2,02,41,17,72,292 — a figure at the centre of one of India’s most closely watched PMLA prosecutions.
Kuang’s role, per ED allegations, included concealment of beneficial ownership, incorporation of entities used to acquire and siphon proceeds of crime, and facilitation of the broader money laundering scheme.
The Ruling — Key Findings
The travel dispute has followed a turbulent procedural path. The trial court first rejected Kuang’s application for permission to travel abroad on June 8, 2026. A subsequent application was then allowed on June 17, 2026, despite no material change in circumstances, per ANI.
That June 17 order was swiftly stayed by Justice Tejas Karia of the Delhi High Court on June 19, 2026. Justice Karia found significant grounds to intervene, placing on record his concern about a realistic risk of non-return.
Justice Karia observed: “Having regard to the nature of the allegations, his foreign nationality, and the absence of an extradition treaty or arrangement between India and the People’s Republic of China, the apprehension that he may not return to India cannot be said to be unfounded.”
Justice Karia further noted: “This Court finds merit in the Petitioner ED’s submission that permitting the Respondent to leave India at this stage may frustrate the pending proceedings and investigation in relation to serious allegations of money laundering.”
Confirming the stay in terms, Justice Karia held: “Having considered the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, the operation and effect of the Order of 17.06.2026 passed by the learned Trial Court shall remain stayed until the next date of hearing.”
On July 14, 2026, Justice Madhu Jain conclusively refused Kuang’s plea. Two additional factors weighed heavily in the ruling: the medical documents submitted by Kuang in support of his travel request had not yet been verified, and the ED had not been given sufficient opportunity to examine the claimed medical condition of his father, as reported by ANI.
The absence of any extradition treaty or arrangement between India and the People’s Republic of China was cited as a key reason for the court’s flight risk finding — meaning that if Kuang were to return to China, India would have no formal legal mechanism to compel his return to face PMLA proceedings.
Reactions & What’s Next
The ED was represented by Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain and advocate Pranjal Tripathi. The agency had strongly opposed both the grant of travel permission and any relaxation of the conditions governing Kuang’s bail while PMLA proceedings remain pending.
The ED’s challenge to the trial court’s April 29, 2026 order quashing the Look Out Circular against Kuang also remains live before the High Court, adding another layer of legal contest to an already complex proceeding, per Asianet Newsable.
With the July 14 ruling, Kuang’s travel plea stands definitively refused at the High Court level. The underlying PMLA prosecution continues before the trial court, with the ED’s prosecution complaint having been filed under Sections 3, 4, and 70 of the PMLA, 2002.
More legal news at The Courtroom.
Why did the Delhi High Court refuse Vivo executive Guangwen Kuang’s travel plea to China?
Justice Madhu Jain refused the plea on July 14, 2026, holding that humanitarian considerations cannot override securing the accused’s presence in PMLA proceedings. The court also noted that Kuang’s medical documents had not been verified and that India has no extradition treaty with China, making his return unenforceable if he were to leave.
When was Guangwen Kuang arrested and what is he accused of in the Vivo PMLA case?
Kuang was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on October 10, 2023. He worked as an admin manager at Vivo Mobile India and is accused of concealing beneficial ownership, incorporating entities to acquire proceeds of crime, and facilitating money laundering under Sections 3, 4, and 70 of the PMLA, 2002. He was granted bail in November 2024.
How much money is alleged to be involved in the Vivo money laundering case?
The ED has alleged that Vivo Mobile India Private Limited and its State Distributor Companies acquired proceeds of crime amounting to approximately Rs 2,02,41,17,72,292, according to ANI.
What happened with the trial court’s June 17, 2026 order permitting Kuang to travel?
The trial court’s June 17, 2026 order allowing Kuang and co-accused Weigang Wang to travel to China was stayed by Justice Tejas Karia of the Delhi High Court on June 19, 2026, citing the absence of an extradition treaty with China and the risk of frustrating pending ED proceedings. Justice Madhu Jain’s July 14 ruling subsequently confirmed the refusal of the travel plea.
Disclaimer
Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws may change or vary by case — consult a qualified lawyer before acting. The Courtroom is not liable for any reliance on this content.
