Members of the Santiago Martin family, including the spouse and relatives of Tamil Nadu Minister Aadhav Arjuna’s wife Daisy, have approached the Madras High Court challenging the attachment of properties worth Rs 456.84 crore in a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case.
| Photo Credit:
PICHUMANI K
The spouse of Tamil Nadu Minister Aadhav Arjuna, Daisy, her parents – “lottery baron” Santiago Martin and Leema Rose Martin, an AIADMK legislator – and others moved the Madras High Court on Tuesday challenging the attachment of their properties in a PMLA case.
They filed a batch of 39 appeals challenging an order of the Appellate Tribunal upholding the order of the Adjudicating Authority confirming the attachment of properties worth Rs 456.84 crore, in connection with a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case.
Aadhav Arjuna, who is the general secretary of the ruling Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagm, is the Minister for Public Works and Sports Development.
High Court issues notice to ED
A division bench comprising Chief Justice S K Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arulmurugan, before whom the civil miscellaneous appeals came up for hearing on Tuesday, ordered notice to the Enforcement Directorate, returnable by six weeks.
Case originates from CBI chargesheet on lottery scam allegations
Predicated on a CBI chargesheet dated February 3, 2014, alleging commission of offences under various provisions of IPC and Lotteries (Regulation) Act, the ED had registered an Enforcement Case Information Report against Martin and others.
The CBI had registered the case regarding an alleged loss to the tune of Rs 910.29 crore caused to the Government of Sikkim in connection with the sale of lottery tickets by inflating the prize-winning tickets that were sold in Kerala.
ED attachment upheld by adjudicating authority and tribunal
Based on this predicate offence, the ED registered the ECIR and attached the properties worth Rs 456.84 crore belonging to Martin, his relatives and others. The Adjudicating Authority had on November 7, 2023, confirmed the provisional attachment of the properties.
The Appellate Tribunal on May 30, 2025, upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority. Aggrieved over this, Martin and 38 others filed the present civil miscellaneous appeals.
Petitioners challenge findings and ED jurisdiction
In their appeal, they contended that the impugned order was passed without considering the documents placed by them, ignoring the ED’s contradictions, and denying the right to cross-examine. The findings rest on surmises and conjectures, overlooking the disclosed legitimate sources of the attached properties.
The Tribunal further disregarded the affidavit of the State of Sikkim confirming no loss, failed to note that no predicate offence survives and ignored that the ED lacked jurisdiction to investigate the predicate offence, they added.
Published on June 9, 2026
