CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Tuesday ordered notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on the appeals filed by ‘Lottery King’ Santiago Martin, his wife M Leema Rose and their daughter Daisy Aadhav Arjuna against the provisional attachment of their movable and immovable properties worth Rs 457 crore over laundering of proceeds of crime generated through illegal sale of Sikkim state lotteries in Kerala.
Leema Rose is an AIADMK MLA and Daisy Aadhav Arjuna is the wife of PWD minister and top TVK leader Aadhav Arjuna.
The first bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Arul Murugan admitted the civil miscellaneous appeals and directed the central agency to file its counter-affidavit within six weeks, and adjourned the hearing to July 22.
As many as 39 appeals have been filed by Martin, his family members and the companies run by them challenging the May 30, 2025, order of the Appellate Tribunal- under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) - upholding the provisional attachment of the movable and immovable properties by the ED in 2023. The adjudicating authority for PMLA confirmed the attachment on July 11, 2023.
The case goes back to the FIRs registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), in 2014, on the illegal sale of Sikkim state lottery in Kerala and causing a loss of revenue of `910.29 crore to Sikkim, under sections 120 (B), 420 IPC and 4 (d) (f), 7 (3) and 9 of Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 and Rules 3 (5) and 4 (5) of the Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2010.
The proceeds of crime was alleged to have been generated through fraudulently inflating the prize-winning ticket claims on Sikkim lottery sold in Kerala.
Based on the CBI FIRs, the ED registered the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) on August 19, 2014.
The appeals alleged the ED had gone beyond its jurisdiction to investigate the predicate offence which is within the exclusive domain of CBI that registered the FIRs.
The predicate offence in the CBI chargesheet pertains only to alleged manipulation involving first and second prize-winning tickets. However, the ED had gone beyond the scope by examining claims below Rs 5,000 which were not part of the scheduled offence.
