In a chargesheet, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has levelled multiple serious accusations against Vivo, a Chinese mobile company, alleging that it siphoned off Rs 70,000 crore from India under the pretence of imports. According to ED, Vivo China was in charge of the company's operations in India, and Vivo India's operations were managed out of Room 901 in a Hong Kong building.

The chargesheet states that "Vivo China monopolised and controlled all the operations of Vivo Mobiles in India through Vivo India and its 23 state distributor companies (SDCs)." The ED claims that Vivo Mobile India Pvt Ltd has been transferring money out of India since 2014. The money was purportedly paid for imported goods and totals approximately Rs 20,241 crore in criminal proceeds.

Many of the claimed imports came from businesses with headquarters in Hong Kong, Samoa, and the British Virgin Islands. These monies were allegedly channelled to foreign trading firms connected to Vivo China. Moreover, the chargesheet filed by the ED implies that Vivo China made an effort to hide its affiliation with Vivo India in order to evade examination by Indian law enforcement.

Vivo China allegedly used a corporate veil to retain control over Vivo India's supply chain, despite efforts to formally separate the two companies on paper. The ED claims that Vivo China ultimately held control over all of the involved companies. Additionally, Vivo China is charged with creating special-purpose entities abroad to serve its own interests, such as Multi Accord Limited in Hong Kong.

Reportedly, Vivo China held shares in Lucky Crest, another Hong Kong company that held a stake in Multi Accord, while Vivo Mobile India, which was incorporated on August 1, 2014, was registered as a subsidiary of Multi Accord. The ED cites this structure as proof of Vivo China's control over its operations in India. It is purported that Vivo China established a web of foreign trading firms in order to conceal the real ownership of these organisations.

Vikas Kumar, the IT manager for Vivo India, acknowledged to the ED that he was directly responsible for a Chinese employee who was employed out of Vivo China's office. The ED further claims that Vivo China engaged in retail activities prohibited by India's Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) policy, which limits 100% FDI in such ventures, by using an Indian company, Labquest Engineering Pvt Ltd, as a front.

In addition, Chinese nationals are said to have obtained invitation letters to enter India covertly through Lava International Ltd., another Indian company.