The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed the trial, in a special court in Kerala, in a money laundering case prosecuted by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) against ‘lottery king’ Santiago Martin, whose company was a major donor to political parties through the now-defunct electoral bonds scheme.
“We are informed that the complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act [PMLA] has been fixed for April 16, 2024 before the special court for hearing on charge. We make it clear that even if the charge is framed, the trial will not commence in PMLA cases till further orders,” a Bench of Justices A.S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan directed.
The apex court issued notice to the ED on a petition filed by Mr. Martin, represented by senior advocate Aditya Sondhi and advocate Rohini Musa, that the money laundering case against him should be discontinued till the final disposal of the predicate case lodged by the CBI in connection with the alleged loss caused to the Sikkim government through the fraudulent sale of state lottery in Kerala. He said an application for his discharge in the predicate case was pending.
The petition argued that an acquittal in the predicate case would automatically result in the non-continuance of proceedings under the PMLA. “Therefore, in the sequence of trial, the trial of the predicate case ought to be given precedence,” the petition contended.
Plea rejected
The PMLA court, on March 16, had rejected his plea to stay the trial, saying both cases were independent and separate.
The Supreme Court posted the case for further hearing on July 12.
The petition, prepared by Ms. Musa, contended there was a catena of judgments which hold that the prosecution for the offence of money laundering would be deemed non-est with the acquittal or discharge or quashing of the scheduled offence.
It submitted that ED authorities cannot proceed on a notional basis and absent a predicate case.
Further, the plea noted that the accused in the money laundering case would be acquitted if those in the predicate case were found innocent.
“No prejudice will be caused 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,” it said.
