The Supreme Court on Wednesday halted the trial in a money laundering case involving lottery mogul Santiago Martin under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The bench of Justices AS Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan presiding over the case has also directed the Enforcement Directorate to provide a response to Martin's plea seeking a stay on the PMLA case until trial proceedings in a separate Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) case against him reach a conclusion.

The allegations against Santiago Martin pertain to his purported involvement in a lottery scandal reportedly tied to the sale of lottery tickets from the Sikkim government in Kerala. The Enforcement Directorate initiated the money laundering case based on a chargesheet filed by the CBI's Kochi office, levying charges against Martin under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Lotteries (Regulation) Act of 1998. Authorities allege that Martin's actions led to a substantial loss of over ₹900 crores to the Sikkim government.

At the crux of Martin's legal defense is the question of trial sequencing. He contends that the trial for the underlying or predicate offense—in this case, the CBI case—should precede the trial in the PMLA case pursued by the ED. Martin argues that it is imperative to conclude the CBI trial before initiating proceedings in the PMLA case.

This legal dispute gained prominence when Martin's initial plea to suspend the PMLA trial was dismissed by a Special PMLA Court in Ernakulam last month on March 16. The trial court ruled that it lacked the jurisdiction to grant the requested stay, citing the separation of the CBI and ED cases.

Martin's plea to the Supreme Court draws upon legal precedent, referencing a 2022 judgment Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India which underscores how an acquittal in the predicate case would automatically terminate proceedings under the PMLA.

His plea to the Supreme Court argued on several grounds:

• Sequential Trial: Martin asserts that the trial of the predicate case (CBI case) should take precedence, and the PMLA trial should be temporarily suspended until the conclusion of the former.

• Absence of Prejudice: Suspending the PMLA trial until the CBI case concludes will not prejudice the complainant. However, continuing the PMLA trial concurrently could potentially harm Martin irreparably.

• Presumption under PMLA: Martin contends that the presumption under Section 24(1)(a) of the PMLA can only arise after the charge is framed in the PMLA case.

Case: S Martin vs. ED.