On the 26th local time, three executives of the Chinese mobile phone company vivo India who were arrested by India appeared in court in New Delhi. The Indian authorities had previously arrested these three people on the grounds of so-called "money laundering". In recent years, many Chinese-funded companies in India have been frequently investigated by India for various unfounded reasons such as "money laundering", and have been subject to penalties such as tax recovery, asset seizure, and bank account freezing.
This is the third time that India has attacked vivo. Its previous two "investigations" did not get the desired results. What is incredible is that during the court hearing that lasted for more than three hours, the Indian prosecutors submitted a secret letter to the judge, asking the judge to only read the report himself and then make a ruling based on this report. In an interview with a reporter from the Global Times on the 27th, a number of Chinese scholars said that the behavior of the Indian prosecutors in the vivo trial was a blatant behind-the-scenes operation, which was jaw-dropping. The secret letter submitted by the Indian prosecutors is likely to be shady material prepared by India to suppress vivo, indicating that this trial is destined not to be a judicial battle in the true legal sense, but a manifestation of naked pan-security.
The prosecutor’s bizarre behavior during the trial
Recently, India's anti-financial crime agency arrested the interim CEO, chief financial officer and an external consultant of vivo's Indian branch on the grounds of combating financial crimes. The interim CEO is Chinese. The Hindu reported on the 26th that the New Delhi District Court held a trial on the same day for three people involved in the case. Based on the application filed by the Indian prosecutor, the presiding judge Swamy decided to extend the detention period of the three defendants for two days to December 28.
Most mainstream media in India briefly reported on the trial, while some American media revealed some details of the trial. According to the media report, after the three defendants were brought to court, the prosecution and defense "had a heated debate that lasted about three hours" in front of the judge. According to reports, although India was on a national holiday that day and the court building was supposed to be empty, the case still attracted many observers, and the judge even had to order people not related to the case to leave the court. At the beginning of the trial, the prosecution lawyer immediately asked the judge to extend the detention period of the three defendants, but this request was opposed by the defense lawyer. The defense lawyer believed that the detention of the three defendants was "illegal detention" and asked the judge to order their immediate release. He also asked the prosecutor to explain in detail the reasons for further detention.
The report also mentioned an important detail. According to reports, while the two sides were arguing with each other, the prosecutor suddenly submitted a sealed letter to the judge and asked the judge to read the report alone and make a ruling on the length of detention. However, the defense lawyer strongly opposed the prosecutor's move and believed that "it goes against common sense." The judge was also baffled by the prosecutor's move. When the judge asked why the report was sealed, prosecutors cited the sensitivity of the case and the "foreign elements" involved. The prosecution and defense argued for more than an hour over whether the report could be released, and ultimately the judge said he would review the report during a recess and decide whether it could be shared with the defense. After a 15-minute recess, the judge decided to allow defense lawyers to obtain a copy of the report in the envelope, but the decision was again opposed by the prosecution. In the end, after several arguments, the prosecutor took a step back, but asked the judge not to allow the contents of the USB flash drive containing "sensitive information" in the envelope to be shared. The judge agreed to this request, stating that only written reports could be shared.
After repeated arguments by lawyers on both sides, the judge finally decided to extend the detention period of the three people for another two days, and attached conditions for the prosecution and defense to share the report, that is, both sides should keep the report confidential, and neither party is allowed to discuss the contents of the report in public.
Regarding this court hearing, vivo stated in an interview with a reporter from the Global Times that it is not convenient to respond during the current litigation period.
Qian Feng, a researcher at the Institute of National Strategy at Tsinghua University, said in an interview with a reporter from the Global Times on the 27th that the secret letter submitted by the Indian prosecutor to the court may be shady material prepared by India to suppress vivo. The intervention of the Indian state machinery makes people clearly feel that in the future, it will be unprecedentedly difficult for Chinese companies such as vivo to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests.
Lin Minwang, deputy director of the South Asia Research Center at Fudan University, told the Global Times reporter that the actions of the Indian prosecutors changed the nature of the incident and elevated the original legal dispute to a national security issue, making it more difficult for vivo to resolve the issue through legal means.
The Indian media is exaggerating and hyping
This is at least the third time that vivo has been investigated and suppressed by India in recent years. On October 10 this year, Indian law enforcement agencies arrested four people on suspicion of money laundering, one of whom was a Chinese employee of vivo India. In early October, India also accused vivo and Xiaomi of helping a local news website illegally transfer funds. The website was under investigation for criticizing the Indian government's policies. In 2022, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India also froze 119 bank accounts related to vivo India, but a court later revoked the penalty.
The Indian media has been hyping up the latest case involving vivo, but strangely, the "amount of crime" claimed by each media is different. The Economic Times of India stated that Vivo India, "under the instructions of its Chinese parent company", "used forged documents to establish a well-organized network across India to deceive the Indian government." According to the report, vivo "sucked 1 trillion rupees (100 rupees is about 8.6 yuan)" from India between 2014 and 2021.
"The Indian Express" stated that vivo "used forged documents to obtain improper benefits for itself" and "undermined Indian law and the country's economic sovereignty." Regarding vivo’s “criminal amount”, the report stated that vivo “obtained more than 2.02 trillion rupees in criminal proceeds.”
"Hindustan Times" stated that since Indian law enforcement agencies conducted a raid on vivo India last year, at least seven Chinese employees related to vivo India have "fleeed" India. The report believes that this move is evidence that vivo "deliberately undermined the investigation and tried to conceal illegal activities such as money laundering." The newspaper claimed that the Indian law enforcement agency’s charges against vivo showed that “vivo and its affiliates violated foreign direct investment laws and made illegal profits through visa fraud, forgery, cheating and other malicious methods, while illegally transferring the proceeds of crime to China.” According to reports, Indian law enforcement agencies estimate that from the establishment of vivo India in 2014 to 2021, the company has remitted 708.37 billion rupees.
Regarding the Indian government’s accusation against vivo, a local businessman who did not want to be named told the Global Times reporter that this accusation is related to the current delicate relationship between India and China, including the previous India-China border conflict. He said: "Based on professional experience, the Indian government's investigation charges against Chinese companies are somewhat far-fetched. For example, the reason why foreign companies cannot legally remit income back to their home country is related to India's foreign investment laws."
Expert: Don’t underestimate India’s behavior of breaking through the lower limit
In 2014, Chinese mobile phone manufacturers such as vivo entered the Indian market one after another. In the past ten years, Chinese mobile phone manufacturers have won four of the top five positions in the Indian mobile phone sales market. However, at the same time, Chinese mobile phone manufacturers have encountered various suppressions in India. Especially since the Galwan Valley conflict broke out between China and India in 2020, the Indian government has successively banned more than 200 Chinese mobile applications in the name of so-called "national security." At the same time, many Chinese companies in India have been involved in "taxation" and "money laundering" incidents.
In fact, almost all foreign-invested companies in India cannot escape harassment, suppression and exploitation by the Indian government. Google, Amazon, Nokia, Samsung and other international companies investing in India have all faced "sky-high fines" of hundreds of millions to billions of dollars from India due to so-called "tax evasion" or "money laundering" and other crimes.
In response to India's suppression of Chinese companies in India, a spokesperson for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs previously stated that the Chinese government firmly supports Chinese companies in safeguarding their legitimate rights and interests. We urge the Indian side to fully understand the mutually beneficial nature of China-India economic and trade cooperation and provide a fair, just, transparent, and non-discriminatory business environment for Chinese companies to invest and operate in India.
Lin Minwang said that India is always willing to suppress Chinese companies, and geopolitical factors and industrial substitution are important factors. Chinese-funded enterprises have been developing in India for many years and have introduced the mobile phone industry chain to India on a large scale, driving the rapid development of the Indian mobile phone industry. In the context of the United States' "decoupling" from China and Europe's "de-risking" from China, India also wants to take the opportunity to promote industrial substitution and strive to create "Made in India." The Modi government has begun to punish Chinese companies investing in India, and frequently uses administrative measures to suppress Chinese brands. The so-called "tax inspections" and "money laundering" are largely excuses.
Qian Feng said that Chinese companies must first take up legal action to safeguard their rights in response to India's extortion and robbery behavior that violates international rules and international law. Although the Indian government intervenes in the judiciary, such a struggle will not only allow Chinese companies, but also international companies to see that India, which uses the slogan of "a country ruled by law" and "welcomes foreign investment," is actually a "cemetery of foreign investment" that does not abide by international market rules and has a poor business environment.
He said that we would like to remind those companies that regard India as a promising investment market and want to expand in India not to underestimate India's various violations of international market rules and even violations of the lower limit.
Qian Feng emphasized that the Chinese government and relevant departments will not sit idly by and allow the legitimate and legitimate interests of Chinese companies to be repeatedly violated by India for no reason. Sino-Indian trade has grown rapidly in recent years, and many data show that India cannot do without the support of intermediate products and raw materials from China in many aspects. Regarding India's unreasonable suppression of Chinese companies, China not only has the right to reasonably and legitimately counterattack, but also judging from the dependence on China-India economic and trade relations, we also have many tools in our toolbox to deal with it.
Related articles: