Summary: On November 24, 2025, the Delhi High Court dismissed multiple requests to challenge the actions taken against a large international cricket betting and money laundering case. The case involved secretive money transfers and illegal betting operations run from Vadodara, India.
The case is about illegal international cricket betting activities conducted through a UK-based website, "Betfair.com". The Enforcement Directorate (ED) started actions against several people, including Naresh Bansal and others, for being part of these activities. The operations were supposedly run from a farmhouse in Vadodara by Girish Patel and his associates.
In May 2015, the ED, acting on insider information, raided the farmhouse and homes of the accused. They seized important documents and cash, linking them to the betting activities. A police report was filed by Vadodara Police on March 25, 2015, against key individuals involved in the scheme.
The ED issued Temporary Seizure Orders under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to take control of properties believed to be bought with money from the crime. These orders were challenged by Naresh Bansal and others, who argued that the seizures were not fair.
"The Directorate conducted a raid... resulting in recovery and seizure of incriminating documents," the court noted.
The court, led by Judges Anil Kshetrapal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, examined several issues:
Authority: The court confirmed its authority to handle the case, noting that important actions related to the case happened in Delhi.
Crime Money: The court decided that the properties seized were indeed bought with money from the crime, despite arguments that cricket betting is not listed as a crime under PMLA.
Reason to Believe: The court found the ED had enough "reason to believe" for the seizures, based on solid evidence.
The court dismissed the petitions, emphasizing the complete procedural protections within the PMLA. The ruling confirmed that the Temporary Seizure Orders were valid and that the legal processes were followed correctly.
"This Court finds no merit in the present Petitions," the judgment concluded.
This case highlights the challenges of dealing with financial crimes linked to illegal betting, showing the legal systems in place to tackle such offenses.
