Vivo Money Laundering Case: Supreme Court Sets Aside Lookout Circular Against CA Nitin Garg, Says He Is Not Flight Risk

The Supreme Court has held that a Lookout Circular (LOC) should not be maintained against a person who is not a flight risk and has consistently cooperated with an investigation.

A Bench of Justices M M Sundresh and Prasanna B Varale said courts should not stand on technicalities while deciding whether such a restrictive measure is necessary. Court accordingly set aside the LOC issued against Chartered Accountant Nitin Garg, while directing him to inform the authorities about his future travel plans in advance. 

Garg is one of the four main accused in the Rs 20,000-crore Vivo-linked money laundering case. The case concerns allegations by the Enforcement Directorate that Vivo India, allegedly acting on instructions from its Chinese parent, created a network of 19 Indian companies to conceal its ownership and control and facilitate the transfer of funds out of India. The ED has alleged that the structure was used to generate and move proceeds of crime worth over Rs 20,000 crore, with Chartered Accountant Nitin Garg allegedly helping incorporate the 19 companies.

Why did Supreme Court quash the Lookout Circular?

Court found that Garg was not a flight risk and there was no need to restrict his foreign travel through a Lookout Circular.

Garg had challenged the September 25, 2025 order of the Delhi High Court, which had refused to interfere with the LOC issued against him.

Appearing for Garg, his counsel submitted that he had travelled abroad on a few previous occasions because of his professional commitments. He visited referral firms and, for this reason, frequently travelled to three countries.

The counsel argued that there was no justification for maintaining the LOC, particularly as Garg is a Chartered Accountant with around 200 associates working with him. He had also consistently cooperated with the investigation and inquiry and, therefore, could not be considered a flight risk.

The respondents, however, submitted that Garg's frequent foreign travel had raised suspicion and that there was no necessity for him to travel abroad. It was also argued that the high court had rejected his plea only on the question of jurisdiction.

After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court said it did not wish to "stand on technicalities".

"We make it clear that we do not wish to stand on technicalities. Suffice it to state that the Lookout Circular against the appellant, who is a Chartered Accountant having his own firm, is not required, as he is not a flight risk," the Bench said.

Court set aside the LOC issued against Garg but imposed a condition on his future foreign travel.

It directed Garg to inform the concerned respondents at least 15 days before each visit abroad. He would have to provide his travel itinerary as well as details of the places he intended to visit.

Case background

Garg was described as one of the four main accused in the Rs 20,000-crore money laundering case linked to Chinese smartphone maker Vivo.

According to the Enforcement Directorate, Garg was the "first limb" in creating a network of 19 companies that allegedly played a key role in the money laundering process.

Garg has denied the allegations. His counsel had submitted that he was not a beneficiary of the alleged proceeds and had merely provided professional services for incorporating the 19 companies. For these services, he was paid a fee of Rs 19 lakh.

Case Title: Nitin Garg Vs Union of India & Ors

Bench: Justices M M Sundresh and Prasanna B Varale 

Date of Judgment: August 25, 2026