Lottery king Santiago Martin’s appeal against Enforcement Directorate’s recent action to attach and freeze his and his company’s movable assets under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) has been dismissed by the Kerala High Court on Tuesday, August 8.

Martin had approached the High Court challenging ED’s provisional attachment orders on the aforementioned properties under the PMLA. According to reports, Martin and his company are accused of involvement in money laundering estimated to be around Rs 910.29 crore. The case was earlier being investigated by the CBI with the ED, subsequently, stepping in and filing a case under PMLA, too. Most recently, the ED froze assets worth Rs 457 crore belonging to him.

Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Ramesh Babu, representing Martin, claimed that the attachment orders went beyond the petitioners’ (Martin and his company’s) portion of the estimated proceeds of crime. They argued that ED estimated the amount to be around Rs 464 crore (51%) while the attachment was done for Rs 894 crore. The remaining portion (49%) relates to the other accused in the case, the petitioners’ lawyers argued.

Appearing on behalf of respondents, ASGI ARL Sundareshan and Standing Counsel Jaishankar V Nair told the court that the attachment order ensures the integrity of PMLA proceedings as Martin allegedly invested proceeds of crime in multiple companies. They argued that the real issue is the legitimacy of the provisional attachment orders passed on June 9, 2023 and May 12, 2022 regarding freezing of movable assets of both the petitioners.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas also noted that PMLA provides a three-tier remedy as per the statute which includes adjudication by an independent authority, appeal to an Appellate Tribunal, and further appeal to the High Court.

“When such statutory remedies are provided, including an appellate power on facts as well to the High Court, exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be akin to usurping the power of the Appellate Court. Such a procedure is not legally proper or justifiable, unless there are exceptional reasons to do so,” Justice Thomas said as per Livelaw.

With this, the court concluded that the writ petition is not maintainable and so it stands dismissed. However, the alternative remedies available as per the statute were upheld.