Hu Bofeng, Ding Yayi/Global Times On the 26th local time, three executives of vivo India, a Chinese mobile phone company arrested by India, appeared in the New Delhi District Court. Indian authorities had previously arrested the three on alleged "money laundering" charges. In recent years, many Chinese-funded enterprises in India have been frequently investigated by the Indian side for various trumped-up reasons such as "money laundering", and have been punished by tax recovery, asset seizure, and freezing of bank accounts. This is the third time that the Indian side has attacked vivo, and its previous two "investigations" have not yielded the desired results. What is unbelievable is that during the more than three-hour court hearing, the Indian prosecutor actually submitted a confidential letter to the judge, asking the judge to only read the report on his own and then make a ruling based on the report. A number of Chinese scholars said in an interview with the "Global Times" reporter on the 27th that the behavior of the Indian prosecutor in the trial of the vivo case was a blatant black-box operation, which was jaw-dropping. The secret letter submitted by the Indian prosecutor is likely to be the shady material prepared by the Indian side to suppress vivo, indicating that this trial is destined not to be a judicial contest in the true legal sense, but a naked manifestation of pan-security.
A few days ago, India's anti-financial crime agency arrested the interim chief executive officer, chief financial officer and one external consultant of vivo India, including the interim chief executive officer, who is a Chinese national, on the grounds of fighting financial crime. The Hindu reported on the 26th that the New Delhi District Court held a trial of the three people involved in the case on the same day. On the basis of an application by the Indian prosecution, the presiding judge, Swami, decided to extend the detention of the three accused by two days to 28 December. Most of the mainstream media in India reported briefly on the trial, while some American media revealed some details of the trial. According to the media, after the three defendants were brought to court, the prosecution and defense "engaged in a heated debate in front of the judge for about three hours." According to the report, despite the fact that India was on holiday that day, the court building should have been crowded, but the case still attracted a large number of observers, and the judge even had to order people unrelated to the case to leave the courtroom. At the outset of the trial, the prosecution's counsel immediately asked the judge to order an extension of the detention of the three accused, but this request was opposed by the defence lawyer. Defence counsel argued that the detention of the three defendants was "illegal detention" and asked the judge to order their immediate release, while also asking the prosecution to elaborate on the reasons for further detention. The report also mentions an important detail. According to the report, while the two sides were arguing with each other, the prosecution suddenly submitted a sealed letter to the judge and asked the judge to read the report separately and make a ruling on the length of detention. However, the defense lawyer strongly opposed the prosecution's move, arguing that "it is contrary to common sense". The judge was also baffled by the prosecution's move. When asked by the judge why the report was sealed, the prosecution referred to the sensitivity of the case and the "foreign factor" involved. The prosecution and defense argued for more than an hour over whether the report could be made public, and eventually the judge said he would review the report at the adjournment and decide whether it could be shared with the defense. After a 15-minute adjournment, the judge decided to allow the defence lawyer to have access to a copy of the report in the envelope, but this decision was again opposed by the prosecution. Eventually, after several arguments, the prosecution took a step back but asked the judge not to allow sharing the contents of the USB flash drive containing "sensitive information" in the envelope, and the judge agreed to the request, saying that only text reports could be shared. After repeated arguments by lawyers on both sides, the judge finally decided to extend the detention of the three men for another two days, and attached a condition to the sharing of the report by the prosecution and defense, that is, both parties should keep the report confidential and neither party should discuss the contents of the report in public. Regarding the trial, vivo said in an interview with the Global Times that it is inconvenient to respond during the current litigation. Qian Feng, a researcher at the Institute of National Strategy of Tsinghua University, said in an interview with the Global Times on the 27th that the secret letter submitted by the Indian prosecutor to the court may be the shady material prepared by the Indian side to suppress vivo. The intervention of the Indian state apparatus makes it clear that in the future, it will be more difficult for Chinese companies such as vivo to protect their legitimate rights and interests than ever before. Lin Minwang, deputy director of the Center for South Asian Studies at Fudan University, told the Global Times that the actions of the Indian prosecutors have changed the nature of the incident, elevating the original legal dispute to a national security issue, and making it more difficult for vivo to solve the problem through legal means. The Indian media hyped up the hype, and this is at least the third time in recent years that vivo has been investigated and suppressed by the Indian side. On October 10 this year, Indian law enforcement agencies arrested four people, one of whom was a Chinese employee of vivo India, on suspicion of money laundering. In early October, India also accused Vivo and Xiaomi of helping a local news website illegally transfer funds, which was under investigation for criticizing the Indian government's policies. In 2022, the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of India also froze 119 bank accounts linked to vivo India, but a court later reversed the penalty. The Indian media has hyped up the latest case involving Vivo, but strangely enough, the "crime amount" claimed by various media outlets varies. According to the Economic Times of India, Vivo India "has established a well-organized network across India using forged documents to defraud the Indian government "at the direction of its Chinese parent company". According to the report, Vivo "siphoned off 1 trillion rupees (100 rupees or 8.6 yuan)" from India between 2014 and 2021. The Indian Express said that Vivo "used forged documents to obtain improper benefits for itself" and "undermined Indian law and the economic sovereignty of the country". Regarding Vivo's "crime amount", the report said that Vivo "obtained more than Rs 2.02 trillion in proceeds of crime". According to the Hindustan Times, at least seven Chinese employees associated with vivo India have "fled" from India since the raid by Indian law enforcement agencies last year. The report described the move as evidence that Vivo "deliberately undermined the investigation and tried to conceal illegal acts such as money laundering". The newspaper claimed that the accusations against vivo by Indian law enforcement agencies showed that "vivo and its affiliates violated the foreign direct investment law by illegally profiting through various malicious methods such as visa fraud, forgery, cheating, and at the same time illegally transferring the proceeds of crime to China." According to the report, Indian law enforcement agencies estimate that Vivo India has remitted Rs 70,837 crore since its inception in 2014 and 2021. Regarding the Indian government's accusations against vivo, a local businessman, who asked not to be named, told the Global Times that the accusation is related to the current delicate relationship between India and China, including the previous India-China border conflict. "Judging from professional experience, the Indian government's investigation of Chinese companies is a bit far-fetched, such as the reason why foreign companies cannot legally repatriate their income to their home countries is related to Indian foreign investment laws," he said. Expert: Don't underestimate India's behavior of breaking through the lower limit In 2014, vivo and other Chinese mobile phone manufacturers have entered the Indian market, and 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 repressions in India. In particular, since the outbreak of the Galwan Valley conflict between China and India in 2020, the Indian government has successively banned more than 200 Chinese mobile apps in the name of so-called "national security". In fact, almost all foreign-funded enterprises in India cannot escape the harassment, suppression, and exploitation of the Indian government, and international companies such as Google, Amazon, Nokia, and Samsung have all been fined hundreds of millions to billions of dollars by the Indian side for so-called "tax evasion" or "money laundering" crimes. In response to India's crackdown on Chinese companies in India, the spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Ministry said earlier that the Chinese government firmly supports Chinese enterprises in safeguarding their legitimate rights and interests, and we urge the Indian side to fully understand the mutually beneficial and win-win nature of China-India economic and trade cooperation, and provide a fair, just, transparent and non-discriminatory business environment for Chinese enterprises to invest and operate in India. Lin Minwang said that the Indian side is willing to suppress Chinese enterprises, 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 into India on a large scale, driving the rapid development of India's 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 build "Made in India". The Modi government has begun to unload and kill Chinese companies investing in India, and has frequently taken administrative measures to suppress Chinese brands, and the so-called "tax audit" and "money laundering" are largely excuses. Qian Feng said that for India's forcible seizure that violates international rules and international law, Chinese enterprises must first take up the law to defend their rights. Although the Indian government interferes in the judiciary, such a struggle will not only make Chinese companies but also international companies see that India, with its slogans of "rule of law" and "welcoming foreign investment", is in fact a "cemetery for foreign investment" that does not abide by the rules of the international market and has a poor business environment. He said: 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 behaviors that violate the rules of the international market or even break through the lower limit. Qian Feng stressed that the Chinese government and relevant departments will not sit idly by and ignore the legitimate and legitimate interests of Chinese companies that have been repeatedly and unreasonably violated by India. Trade between China and India has grown rapidly in recent years, and many data show that India is inseparable from the support of intermediate goods and raw materials from China in many aspects. China not only has a reasonable and legitimate right to counteract India's unreasonable suppression of Chinese companies, but also has many tools in our toolbox to deal with China's dependence on China-India economic and trade relations.
This issue is edited by Xing Tan