Supreme Court Stays Trial In PMLA Case Against Lottery Baron Santiago Martin, Seeks ED's Response

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (April 10) has admitted the plea of Santiago Martin, a giant in India's lottery industry, against the Special Court's order refusing to defer his trial in a money laundering case until the disposal of the predicate case registered by the CBI. The bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, while issuing notice, has also stayed the trial and has sought the response of the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in the present appeal. The trial is pending before the Special PMLA Court at Ernakulam, Kerala. Essentially, Martin was an accused in the case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Cochin. Based on this, the ED filed a complaint implicating seven accused persons, including Martin, in a PMLA Case. Following this, the petitioner filed an application seeking to keep in abeyance the PMLA case till the final disposal of the predicate case, i.e., the case registered by the CBI. However, the Special Court rejected the same and stated that the two cases were independent and separate. It is against this order that the petitioner has now approached the Supreme Court. The petitioner, in his plea, raised a significant question about the law. It stated that in the sequence of the trial between the predicate offence and the PMLA case, which case should take precedence? The petitioner, to bolster its stance, had relied upon the precedent of VijayMadanlal Choudhary versus Union of India & Ors. Therein, the Court had observed that if a person was discharged or acquitted in the scheduled/predicate case, the proceedings under PMLA could not be continued.The Apex Court judgment in Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement was also cited. Therein, the Court had clarified that a person accused of an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA need not necessarily be shown as an accused in the scheduled offence. The Court also held :"Even if an accused shown in the complaint under the PMLA is not an accused in the scheduled offence, he will benefit from the acquittal of all the accused in the scheduled offence or discharge of all the accused in the scheduled offence. Similarly, he will get the benefit of the order of quashing the proceedings of the scheduled offence" In view of this, the petitioner, in his petition, has averred that the trial of the predicate case is to be conducted first. Thus, the present trial in the money laundering case should be kept abeyance during the pendency of the predicate case. “Last but not the least, the application for discharge in the predicate case filed by the Petitioner is pending consideration. That in the event of Petitioner being discharged in the predicate case, there will be no question of continuation of PMLA proceedings.,” the petition added. It may also be noted that one of the reasons cited by the petitioner for approaching the Supreme Court is the pendency of the matter in M/s. BhartiCement Corporation Private Limited v. Directorate of Enforcement. In this matter, the Telangana High Court had held that the proceedings in the PMLA case should await the outcome of the alleged predicate case. The same is pending for consideration before the Apex Court. Given that the issue is the same as the one raised in the present plea, the petitioner has approached the Top Court.Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi appeared for the petitioner. The petition was filed through Advocate-On-Record Rohini Musa. Case Title: S MARTIN v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT., SLP(Crl) No. 4768/2024Click Here To Read/Download Order

Supreme Court Stays Trial In PMLA Case Against Lottery Baron Santiago Martin, Seeks ED's Response

Gyanvi Khanna

Tags