Vivo PMLA case: ED makes four arrests in money laundering investigation
The ED's investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was initiated based on a case filed by the Delhi Police in 2021 against M/s Grand Prospect International Communication Private Limited (GPICPL) and its directors, shareholders, and certifying professionals.
In a recent development, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has taken four individuals into custody, including a Chinese national, as part of its money laundering investigation targeting the Chinese mobile manufacturer Vivo. The agency's officials disclosed this information on Tuesday.
The individuals arrested in connection with this case are Guangwen Kyang, also known as Andrew Kuang (a Chinese citizen), Hari Om Rai (the managing director of Lava International), Nitin Garg (a chartered accountant), and Rajan Malik (a private individual).
It is reportedly said that the investigation traces back to July 5 of the previous year when the ED conducted raids on Vivo Mobiles India Pvt Ltd and 23 associated companies. At that time, the ED revealed that one of the companies connected to Vivo, GPICPL (M/s Grand Prospects International Communication Pvt. Ltd.), had been registered on December 3, 2014, at ROC Shimla.
It had registered addresses in Solan, Himachal Pradesh, and Gandhinagar, Jammu. Interestingly, GPICPL had been incorporated by Chinese citizens, including Zhengshen Ou, Bin Lou, and Zhang Jie, with the assistance of Nitin Garg, a chartered accountant. Bin Lou had departed India on April 26, 2018, while Zhengshen Ou and Zhang Jie left India in 2021.
The ED's investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was initiated based on a case filed by the Delhi Police in 2021 against M/s Grand Prospect International Communication Private Limited (GPICPL) and its directors, shareholders, and certifying professionals. The complaint originated from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, alleging the use of forged identification documents and falsified addresses during GPICPL's incorporation.
Subsequent investigations substantiated these claims, revealing that the addresses provided by GPICPL's directors did not correspond to their actual residences but rather to a government building and the residence of a senior bureaucrat. This revelation formed the basis of the ED's ongoing inquiry.