Lottery king Martin, family challenge Rs 457 cr ED attachment before Madras HC

The Bench comprising Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan ordered notice to the department, returnable in six weeks, in a batch of 39 appeals filed by the individuals and companies connected to them
Lottery baron Santiago Martin
Lottery baron Santiago Martin
Updated on

CHENNAI: Public Works Department and Sports Development Minister Aadhav Arjuna's wife, Daisy Aadhav Arjuna, his father-in-law, lottery baron Santiago Martin, his mother-in-law and AIADMK MLA Leema Rose, and others have moved the Madras High Court challenging the attachment of properties worth Rs 456.84 crore in a PMLA case.

The Bench comprising Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan ordered notice to the department, returnable in six weeks, in a batch of 39 appeals filed by the individuals and companies connected to them.

Martin, the managing director of Sikkim Lotteries, was accused of causing a loss of Rs 910.29 crore to the Sikkim Government through the fraudulent sale of lottery tickets in Kerala between 2009 and 2010. In connection with this, a CBI case was registered, following which the ED registered an ECIR and attached properties worth Rs 456.84 crore belonging to Martin, his relatives, and others.

On November 7, 2023, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the provisional attachment of properties worth Rs 456.84 crore. The Appellate Tribunal, on May 30, 2025, upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority. Aggrieved by the decision, Martin and 38 others filed the present appeals, contending that the impugned order was passed without considering the documents placed before it, ignored contradictions in the ED's case, and denied them the right to cross-examine witnesses.

They further submitted that the findings were based on surmises and conjectures, overlooked the disclosed legitimate sources of the attached properties, disregarded the affidavit filed by the State of Sikkim confirming that no loss had been caused, failed to note that no predicate offence survives, and ignored the fact that the ED lacked jurisdiction to investigate the predicate offence.

X

DT Next
www.dtnext.in