Xiaomi alleges coercion, ED rejects charge

Advertisement

New Delhi, May 7

The Enforcement Directorate today dubbed as “baseless and an afterthought” the allegations levelled by Xiaomi India that the statements of its officials recorded under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) were taken “under coercion”. Xiaomi India is a trader and distributor of mobile phones in the country under the brand name of Mi.

Professional agency with strong ethics

The ED is a professional agency with strong work ethics and there was no coercion or threat to the officers of Xiaomi India at any point of time. Enforcement Directorate

Mobile business

• Xiaomi India is a trader and distributor of mobile phones in the country under the brand name ‘Mi’
• The ED is responding to reports quoting the Chinese mobile manufacturing subsidiary’s submission before the Karnataka HC that its top executives were ‘threatened with physical violence and coercion’
• The development comes in the backdrop of ED passing an order on April 29 to seize Xiaomi India’s funds worth over Rs 5,551 crore

The ED was responding to news reports quoting the wholly owned Chinese mobile manufacturing subsidiary’s submission before the Karnataka High Court that its top executives were “threatened with physical violence and coercion” during their questioning by the agency officials in Bengaluru.

In a statement, the ED said it was “a professional agency with strong work ethics and there was no coercion or threat to the officers of the company at any point of time”.

The developments come in the backdrop of the ED passing an order under the provisions of the FEMA on April 29 to seize Xiaomi India’s funds worth over Rs 5,551 crore over alleged violation of the said law, which was stayed by the Karnataka HC earlier this week.

The ED said the statement of Xiaomi global vice-president Manu Kumar Jain was recorded on four occasions while that of chief financial officer Sameer BS Rao on six occasions. “However, no complaint was filed by them at any point of time during recording of statements. The last statement was recorded on April 26 and the seizure order was passed on April 29. It appears the allegation now made after passage of substantial time is an afterthought,” it noted.