Supreme Court halts trial in money laundering case against lottery tycoon Santiago Martin

The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed the trial in a money laundering case filed against lottery tycoon Santiago Martin under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) [S Martin v ED]..Justices AS Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan also asked the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to respond to the plea filed by Martin seeking stay on the PMLA case until trial proceedings in another CBI case registered against him is complete. .Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi along with Advocate Rohini Musa appeared for Martin..Martin has been accused of being involved in a lottery scam, which is reportedly linked to the sale of lottery tickets of the Sikkim government in Kerala. The ED had booked him in a money laundering case based on a chargesheet filed by the Kochi office of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), in which he was charged with certain provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as well as the Lotteries (Regulation) Act of 1998. He was accused of causing an approximate loss of over ₹900 crores to the Sikkim government, as per reports. He also made the news recently for reportedly emerging the single largest donor of electoral bonds (₹1,368 crores), as per data disclosed by the State Bank of India (SBI)..In his plea before the top court, Martin has raised questions about whether the trial of a predicate offence (underlying offence, which in this case refers to the CBI's case) should take precedence over the trial in the PMLA case being probed by the ED.Martin had earlier filed an application before the top court in November 2023, praying that the PMLA proceedings be stayed until the disposal of predicate case handled by the CBI. This application was later transferred to Special Court, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam.Martin's plea to halt the PMLA trial against him was dismissed last month (March 16) by a Special PMLA Court at Ernakulam. The trial court had opined that the CBI and ED cases were separate and that the trial court did not have the power to stay the trial as sought for by Martin.Therefore, Martin approached the Supreme Court with the current plea for relief. .Before the Supreme Court, Martin reiterated his stance that the CBI trial with respect to predicate offences should conclude first, before the trial in the PMLA case/ ED's case can proceed. Martin highlighted that the Supreme Court has already held in its 2022 judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India that an acquittal in the predicate case would automatically result in the non–continuance of proceedings under the PMLA. Therefore, Martin urged the Supreme Court to keep the PMLA trial against him at abeyance till the final disposal of the predicate case, that is, the CBI case. "In the sequence of trial, it ought to be the trial of the predicate case that ought to be given precedence," Martin's plea stated..The plea raised the following grounds to contend that the PMLA trial should be halted until the CBI trial is over. - The trial of a predicate case can commence only after the conclusion of the trial in the predicate case. It is impossible to conceive of a PMLA case absent a predicate case. In the event of discharge or acquittal of accused in the PMLA case, the PMLA proceedings cannot continue;- The trial of the predicate case (CBI case) is to be conducted first and the trial of this case (PMLA case) is to be kept in abeyance during the pendency of the predicate case;- No prejudice will cause to the complainant by keeping further proceedings in abeyance till the disposal of the predicate case. If further proceedings in this case are not kept in abeyance, it would cause serious prejudice, irreparable injury and harm to the petitioner (Martin);- Presumption under Section 24 (1) (a) of the PMLA can arise only after framing of the charge in the PMLA case.