Court cites absence of extradition treaty and serious allegations in rejecting humanitarian plea
In a significant ruling on international legal cooperation, the Delhi High Court has denied a petition filed by Ms. Vivo Mobile Communication seeking permission for one of its employees, a Chinese national named Guangwen Kuang (also known as Andrew), to travel to China on humanitarian grounds. The decision, delivered by Justice Madhu Jain, underscores the complexities involved in cross-border criminal proceedings, especially in the absence of extradition treaties.
The petitioner, Directorate of Enforcement, opposed the application citing the enormity of the alleged crime, which involves proceeds of approximately Rs. 2,02,41,17,72,292.89 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The respondent, Andrew, sought permission to visit his critically ill father in Guangzhou, China, highlighting humanitarian concerns given his father’s grave medical condition.
The court, while acknowledging the humanitarian grounds, emphasized that such considerations cannot outweigh the legal obligations and risks involved. Justice Jain noted the absence of an extradition treaty between India and the People's Republic of China, which significantly impairs the ability to ensure the respondent’s return should he be allowed to travel. Additionally, the court pointed out the lack of enforceable safeguards presented by the respondent's employer, which did not provide a legally binding assurance of Andrew's return.
The judgment referenced previous cases, including the Supreme Court's decision in Wu Chuaannan & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, where travel permissions were granted based on rigorous safeguards including substantial bank guarantees and undertakings from diplomatic authorities—safeguards that were notably absent in this case.
Justice Jain further highlighted international reciprocity in legal treatment, referencing China's legal framework, which restricts foreign nationals involved in criminal proceedings from leaving its territory. This principle of reciprocity influenced the court's decision, as the legal position in China would not ordinarily permit foreign nationals facing criminal charges to exit the country.
Given the serious nature of allegations, the absence of any enforceable assurance for the respondent’s return, and international legal principles, the court concluded that granting permission would pose significant risks to justice. The application was thus dismissed, reinforcing the legal stance that humanitarian grounds alone are insufficient in cases involving serious economic offenses without adequate international legal support mechanisms.
Bottom line:-
Permission to travel abroad for a foreign national facing criminal prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, was denied due to the absence of extradition and mutual legal assistance treaties between India and China, lack of adequate safeguards to ensure return, and the seriousness of the allegations.
Statutory provision(s): Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Directorate of Enforcement v. Ms Vivo Mobile Communication, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2940757
