ED attaches Rs 19 crore of cricketers, actors in 1xBet betting case

What the Record Shows

The Enforcement Directorate provisionally attached about Rs 19 crore of assets of several cricketers and actors in its money-laundering investigation into the offshore betting platform 1xBet, across two orders in late 2025, according to the agency. On 6 October 2025 it attached assets worth about Rs 11.14 crore belonging to cricketers Suresh Raina and Shikhar Dhawan, and on 19 December 2025 a further Rs 7.93 crore belonging to Yuvraj Singh, Robin Uthappa and actors Urvashi Rautela, Sonu Sood, Mimi Chakraborty, Ankush Hazra and Neha Sharma, per the All India Radio report of the action.

The attachment covered mutual-fund investments and immovable property. In the first tranche, about Rs 6.64 crore of mutual-fund holdings was attributed to Raina and about Rs 4.5 crore of immovable property to Dhawan, according to reporting of the order.

The ED registered its case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, on the basis of multiple first information reports filed by state police forces against the operators of 1xBet. A provisional attachment under Section 5 of the PMLA is an interim step: it freezes assets, must be confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority, and is appealable. It is not a finding of guilt. On the public record the endorsers' assets stand attached; they have not been shown as accused in a prosecution complaint.

How It Worked

According to the ED, 1xBet is an offshore betting operator that functioned in India without authorisation, and betting of the kind it offered is illegal in several States. The agency alleges the platform used "surrogate advertising", near-identical brands such as 1xBat and 1xBat Sporting Lines ostensibly for sports news or apparel, to buy mainstream visibility that the betting brand itself could not lawfully purchase.

The ED's case is that well-known cricketers and film actors signed endorsement agreements to promote those surrogate brands, and that the fees they received represented, in the agency's characterisation, proceeds of illegal betting. The agency alleges the payments were routed through layered transactions via foreign entities so that the source of the funds was concealed. The attached assets, the ED says, represent or were acquired from those endorsement fees.

The ED has said the endorsers "knowingly entered into endorsement agreements with foreign entities" connected to the platform, per its statement on the December attachment. As part of the investigation the agency questioned several of the cricketers and summoned actor Sonu Sood to record statements.

It is important to separate two things the record keeps distinct. Having assets attached is not the same as being named as an accused: an attachment is a measure to secure property the agency alleges is linked to proceeds of crime, pending confirmation. A prosecution complaint, when and if filed, is what formally arraigns a person. On the public record the endorsers fall in the first category, not the second. A PMLA attachment contains allegations, not findings of guilt; those affected are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues.

Who Lost Money

The victims the record identifies are Indian users who placed bets on an unlicensed offshore platform, and the exchequer. Illegal betting operators typically function outside consumer-protection and tax rules, so users have little recourse if funds are withheld, and the state collects nothing on the activity.

The attached sums, about Rs 19 crore in total, are not investor losses in the ordinary sense; they are assets the ED alleges are traceable to endorsement income from promoting the surrogate brands. Whether that characterisation holds is exactly what the Adjudicating Authority and, in any prosecution, a trial court would test.

No money has been returned or confiscated at this stage. An attachment preserves assets; it neither compensates bettors nor establishes that any endorser did anything unlawful.

Where It Stands Now

As of now the matter rests at the attachment stage. The October and December 2025 provisional attachments require confirmation by the PMLA Adjudicating Authority, which must consider them within the statutory period; any confirmation can be challenged before the Appellate Tribunal, and onward before the courts. No confirmation, prosecution complaint against the endorsers, or adjudication of the attachments was on the public record at the time of writing.

The agency has said its investigation into 1xBet and its surrogate entities continues. No on-the-record denial by the endorsers could be located for this report; if any files a response or challenge, that becomes part of the record the courts weigh.

A provisional attachment contains allegations, not findings of guilt. Everyone whose assets are attached is presumed innocent, and an attachment can be, and often is, contested and released. Due process continues.

What It Means

The case is a clear illustration of surrogate advertising as a regulatory problem: an activity that cannot be advertised directly buys the same reach through a look-alike brand, and the recognisable faces attached to it supply the credibility. The enforcement response has been to trace the money paid for that visibility rather than the advertising alone.

For readers, the practical takeaways are procedural. First, an attachment freezes assets to preserve them for a possible later order; it is not a verdict, and it does not by itself mean the person is an accused. Second, offshore betting platforms operate outside India's licensing and consumer rules, so users carry the full risk with no regulator to appeal to. Verifying whether an app or operator is authorised before parting with money is the only real protection available.

For how comparable PMLA attachments have fared once tested, the Oquilia enforcement archive tracks the stages, including the ED attachment of Maa Saraswati Educational Trust's assets and the Gauhati High Court's order upholding the ED attachment in the Fama Marketing case.

FAQ

Does this mean the endorsers are guilty of anything?

No. A provisional attachment contains allegations, not findings of guilt. Those whose assets are attached are presumed innocent until proven guilty. On the public record the endorsers have had assets attached and some were questioned, but they have not been shown as accused in a prosecution complaint, and no court has ruled on the matter.

What exactly did the ED attach?

The ED provisionally attached about Rs 11.14 crore on 6 October 2025 (assets of Suresh Raina and Shikhar Dhawan) and about Rs 7.93 crore on 19 December 2025 (assets of Yuvraj Singh, Robin Uthappa, Urvashi Rautela, Sonu Sood, Mimi Chakraborty, Ankush Hazra and Neha Sharma), under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

Is having assets attached the same as being charged?

No. An attachment is a measure to secure property the agency alleges is linked to proceeds of crime, pending confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority. Being named as an accused happens through a prosecution complaint. The two are distinct stages, and an attachment can be contested and released.

What is surrogate advertising in this case?

The ED alleges 1xBet, an offshore betting platform it says operated in India without authorisation, used near-identical brands such as 1xBat and 1xBat Sporting Lines, ostensibly for sports news or apparel, to gain mainstream visibility that the betting brand could not lawfully buy.

Can the attachment be challenged?

Yes. A provisional attachment under Section 5 of the PMLA must be confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority, and any confirmation can be appealed to the PMLA Appellate Tribunal and then the courts. Until then the freeze is interim and does not decide ownership.

Where can I read the official record?

The Enforcement Directorate's action was reported by the News Services Division of All India Radio (newsonair.gov.in), linked below.

This report is based on the All India Radio (News Services Division) report dated 19 December 2025 on the ED's Rs 7.93 crore attachment in the 1xBet case, and the earlier October 2025 attachment, reviewed on 31 July 2026.