Madras High Court Issues Notice On Plea By Lottery Baron Santiago Martin & Kin Against Provisional Attachment Of Properties By ED

The Madras High Court on Tuesday issued notice to ED on a plea by lottery baron Santiago Martin, his wife and AIADMK MLA Leema Rose Martin, daughter Daisy Aadhav Arjuna, challenging PMLA Appellate Tribunal's order confirming the attachment of properties by the agency in connection with an alleged money laundering case.

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

The appeals are against the order of the Appellate Tribunal for PMLA in New Delhi which upheld an order of the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA confirming the provisional attachment of properties by the ED. The plea also seeks to release the attachment.

Martin, who is the Managing Director of Sikkim Lotteries, was accused of causing a loss of Rs 910.29 crore to the Sikkim Government through fraudulent sale of lottery tickets in Kerala between 2009 to 2010.

A CBI case was registered based on which the ED registered a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Five provisional attachments were made by the ED. The present petition was with respect to the provisional attachment order dated June 9, 2023.

It may be noted that Martin had previously challenged these provisional attachment orders before the Kerala High Court. He had claimed that the attachment orders exceeded the petitioners' share in the estimated proceeds of crime. It was argued that despite the ED estimating Martin's involvement at 51% (approximately Rs. 464.25 crores), the provisional attachments went beyond, amounting to nearly Rs. 894 crores. They asserted that only 51% could be attributed to Martin, while the remaining portion pertains to another accused.

Dismissing Martin's plea, the Kerala High Court had observed that the PMLA provides a three-tier remedy within the statute itself - adjudication by an independent authority, appeal to an Appellate Tribunal, and further appeal to the High Court. It was highlighted that resorting to Article 226 of the Constitution writ petitions should be exceptional and that when statutory remedies are available, they should not be bypassed unless entirely ill-suited to the situation. Though this order of the single judge was challenged, a division bench of the Kerala High Court had dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: Santiago Martin v Deputy Director (batch cases)

Case No: CMA 1411 of 2026