Back
Denies PMLA Accused Permission To Travel To China Amidst Investigation
In a significant order addressing the challenges of for foreign nationals, the has dismissed a plea filed by a Chinese executive associated with , who sought permission to travel to Guangzhou, China. Presiding over the case, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Madhu Jain highlighted the complexities of ensuring the appearance of an accused in a high-stakes money laundering investigation where international cooperation remains limited.
The Backdrop: A Plea on The accused, a Chinese national currently facing under the , sought temporary release of his passport to visit his 82-year-old father, who is reportedly suffering from a critical cerebellar haemorrhage. Counsel for the applicant argued that the request was rooted in humanitarian necessity, emphasizing the applicant’s prior cooperation with the and his willingness to provide an employer-backed undertaking to return to India.
The ’s Stance: A Risk to Justice The Directorate of Enforcement strongly opposed the motion, underscoring the severity of the case involving alleged exceeding ₹20,000 crores. The ED argued that the lack of an or a with the People’s Republic of China would make it virtually impossible to secure the applicant’s presence should he fail to return. Furthermore, the pointedly noted that the proposed undertaking from the employer was a private, non-binding document rather than a governmental guarantee.
Legal Analysis: The Weight of Reciprocity The Court’s reasoning pivoted on the practical difficulties of verifying foreign documents and the absence of institutional safeguards. Referring to a precedent from the ( ), Justice Madhu Jain noted that the legal framework in China itself often prevents foreign nationals facing criminal proceedings from exiting.
The Court distinguished this situation from , a case where travel was permitted only after substantial safeguards—including a of ₹1 crore and a specific assurance from the —were established. In the present matter, no such assurances were present.
Key Observations
"The Court is required to balance such considerations with the interest of justice and the necessity of securing the presence of the accused throughout the proceedings."
"In the absence of any effective mechanism for securing his return, the legal position prevailing in the destination country constitutes a relevant circumstance which this Court cannot disregard."
"This Court would not be adopting a substantially liberal approach in favour of a foreign national facing before an Indian Court, particularly when no effective legal mechanism exists to secure his return."
The Verdict: Justice Over Humanitarian Pleas The Court concluded that while it remained sensitive to the applicant’s personal circumstances, these humanitarian considerations could not override the structural necessity of maintaining the integrity of an ongoing trial. The decision underlines a strict approach toward economic offenders who are foreign nationals, particularly when the destination country lacks established legal treaties with India for extradition or mutual assistance.
As a result, the application for travel was dismissed, effectively prioritizing the continuity of the legal process over personal exigencies. The case is set for further proceedings on .
