Today(on 10th April), Supreme Court stays money laundering trial involving ‘lottery king’ Santiago Martin after his plea to postpone the trial is dismissed by PMLA court.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today(on 10th April), intervened by issuing a stay on proceedings in a money laundering case involving Santiago Martin, commonly known as the ‘lottery king.’ This action came after Martin challenged a decision made by a special PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) court in Ernakulam, Kerala, on March 16, which had dismissed his plea to postpone the trial until the completion of a related case.
The bench, composed of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, responded to Martin’s appeal by issuing a notice concerning the disputed March 16 order.
Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi and Advocate Rohini Musa, representing Martin, expressed before the court that the special court failed to recognize a vital legal point. They asserted that the special court should have considered that the trial in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case can commence only after the conclusion of the trial in the predicate case.
ALSO READ: [Pankaj Bansal vs. UOI] ED Directed to Provide ‘Written Grounds’ of Arrest to PMLA Accused: SC
Martin’s challenge pertains to the procedural order of trials concerning money laundering accusations. He particularly emphasized that the chargesheet submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) regarding an alleged lottery scam forms the basis (‘predicate’) for the subsequent money laundering case initiated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against him and others. Martin’s plea before the Supreme Court emphasized this order, arguing for the priority of concluding the trial concerning the predicate case before proceeding with the PMLA case.
Martin challenged the procedural order of trials in a money laundering case, arguing that the chargesheet filed by the CBI in an alleged lottery scam serves as the basis for the subsequent case filed by the ED. He cited the Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary case to support his position that PMLA proceedings should halt if there is an acquittal or discharge in the predicate case, aiming for a consistent application of legal principles.
ALSO READ: Co-Accused Confessions under Section 50 PMLA Deemed Inadmissible: Delhi High Court
