What Is The Santiago Martin Case Where SC Drew Red Line For ED?

Recently, the case against Santiago Martin, also known as the ‘lottery king’ has come to the fore once again, this time through the intervention of the Supreme Court. The SC order could have deeper implications for other pending cases as it has restrained the Enforcement Directorate (ED) from having access to and copying the contents from electronic devices seized during searches conducted on Martin, his relatives and employees last month.

The Supreme Court order asked the ED “not to access and copy” the contents of the mobile phone of Santiago Martin and any of the electronic devices belonging to his company’s employees. Moreover, the judges also put a stay order on the summons that were issued by the ED under the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) where the investigating agency sought the presence of the persons mentioned therein for extraction of data stored in the respective digital devices.

The SC order extends further—it involves Amazon India and NewsClick, the media house raided in 2023 and the electronic devices seized from many of its employees. The two-page order, passed by Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal on December 13, ruled that the 'Future Gaming' case be clubbed with other connected cases for hearing together. The four cases listed in Future Gaming’s petition include the one filed by employees of Amazon India challenging ED’s demands to produce their electronic devices and the Newsclick case, where the petitioners seek guidelines from the Supreme Court on the seizure of laptops and phones by Delhi Police in 2023.

According to Lawyer Rohini Musa, who filed the 234-page petition, the Supreme Court order could become an important precedent for other ongoing cases. “The first thing is the Supreme Court has not given a date for the restraint against the ED to be lifted. The other thing is beside the infringement of fundamental rights and the right to privacy, it should be ensured the ED does not embark on a fishing expedition and does not force the petitioner (Santiago Martin) to incriminate himself in this and other cases via the material found in the electronic devices”—the lawyer said to media (Indian Express). 

The ED Search in Six States against Martin and His Company

The ED search has a link to Meghalaya. In a complaint by Meghalaya Police, it was alleged that Martin’s company Future Gaming and Hotel Services Private Limited had illegally captured the lottery business in the state. The searches had yielded around Rs 12.41 crore in cash. The searches in November were conducted in 22 places in six states.

Santiago Martin & Electoral Bonds

Remember the hue and cry about the electoral bond earlier this year, that too, with the intervention of the SC? This had rocked the country before the Lok Sabha polls.

Notably, Santiago Martin’s company Future Gaming was the single largest donor of electoral bonds. The company reportedly bought electoral bonds worth Rs 1368 crores between 2014 and 2019.

The company also donated to many political parties including the BJP. The Trinamool Congress (TMC) received about 542 crore rupees, while the DMK (Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam) got 503 crores, YSR Congress redeemed 154 crores and BJP received 100 crores.

Notably, donations under electoral bonds are not illegal, but the ruling party BJP has been alleged to have been the biggest beneficiary receiving nearly half of the bonds donated between 2018 and 2024. The electoral bond system has also been accused of making political funding more opaque.

A closer look at Mr Martin's life reveals a fascinating story of him from nowhere to climb the ladder of success to become a millionaire. He started working as a daily wage labourer and rose to run a lottery empire that expanded through several Indian states as well as the neighbouring country of Bhutan.

It is yet to see what the SC order of putting a bar on ED from examining and copying the content from the seized electronic devices would bring to Martin’s case and those listed together. However, it is considered significant in the context of the criticisms of investigating agencies seizing personal electronic devices and examining them, which involves a violation of privacy.