ED Conducts Searches at 44 Premises of Mobile Firm Vivo in Money Laundering Case

An enquiry was sought against Vivo in April over "irregularities in ownership and financial reporting."

The ED conducted searches at 44 places across the country in a money laundering probe against Vivo on 5 July.

(Photo: The Quint)

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) conducted searches at 44 places of Chinese mobile manufacturing company Vivo and related firms, in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, and in southern states, on Tuesday, 5 July in connection with the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.

Following the raids, the law enforcement agency seized funds worth Rs 465 crore, Rs 73 lakh in cash, and 2 kg of gold. To evade from paying taxes in India, the ED said that Vivo remitted almost 50 percent or Rs 62,476 crore worth of its turnover to China, reported news agency PTI.

'Vivo Directors Fled India Last Year Itself': ED

Meanwhile, amid reports of Vivo directors Zhengshen Ou and Zhang Jie fleeing India, an ED source clarified to news agency ANI that the directors had fled last year itself.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has also been probing the case and lodged a separate First Information Report (FIR).

Meanwhile, Vivo has said that it is cooperating with the authorities to provide them with all the required information.

In April this year, the ED had seized Rs 5,551.27 crore lying in the bank accounts of Xiaomi Technology India Private Ltd under the provisions of Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) in connection with the illegal outward remittances made by the company.

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs is also learnt to have a special focus on potential violations, including fraud.

For Vivo, an enquiry was sought in April this year to detect if there were "significant irregularities in ownership and financial reporting," Mint reported.

After the raids, China stated that they hope India conduct the investigations in accordance with the law and regulations and provide a "truly fair" and "non-discriminatory" business environment to Chinese firms.

(With inputs from IANS, PTI, and Mint.)