ED attaches Rs 117 crore of opinion-trading platform Probo's assets

What the Record Shows

The Enforcement Directorate provisionally attached assets worth about Rs 117.41 crore belonging to Probo Media Technologies Pvt Ltd and family members of its directors on 9 December 2025, in a money-laundering investigation into the opinion-trading platform, according to the agency's account of the action. The attached assets include fixed deposits, shareholdings, demand drafts, bank balances and residential property held by relatives of the directors.

This followed searches on 8 and 9 July 2025, during which the ED says it froze about Rs 284.5 crore in fixed deposits, shares and bank lockers under Section 17(1)(a) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The agency has estimated the proceeds of crime in the case at about Rs 1,245.64 crore.

The ED's case rests on first information reports registered by state police in Gurugram and Palwal in Haryana and Agra in Uttar Pradesh, with the predicate offences drawn from the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Public Gambling Act, 1867. The company's promoters named in the action are Sachin Subhaschandra Gupta and Ashish Garg. A provisional attachment is an interim measure, subject to confirmation by the PMLA Adjudicating Authority and appealable; it is not a finding of guilt. The company has said it is cooperating with the investigation.

How It Worked

According to the ED, Probo marketed itself as a skill-based "opinion trading" or prediction-market platform, on which users staked money on yes or no questions about future events in sports, finance and entertainment. The agency alleges that, in substance, this was a binary wagering mechanism on event outcomes, a game of chance with stakes, rather than a game of skill.

The ED further alleges the platform operated with deficient know-your-customer controls that allowed minors to register and stake money. On that basis the agency treats the platform's receipts as proceeds of an illegal gambling operation, which is the theory underlying both the July freeze and the December attachment.

The classification is genuinely contested, and that contest is already before the courts. In a separate proceeding, the Chhattisgarh High Court on 9 May 2025 considered a public-interest petition seeking to block the platform. The company argued its product was skill-based opinion trading; the court granted interim relief, directing the site to be blocked only within Chhattisgarh while permitting operations elsewhere, and observed at the interim stage that the platform appeared to qualify as a game of skill. That was an interim view in a different case, not a final ruling, and it does not bind the ED's money-laundering investigation.

The company stopped operations in August 2025 after the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 came into force. A provisional attachment and the underlying FIRs contain allegations, not findings of guilt; those named are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues.

Who Lost Money

The users the ED identifies as affected are the retail participants who staked money on event outcomes on the platform, including, per the agency, underage users who it says should not have been able to register at all. The state exchequer is the other party the agency frames as harmed, on the theory that an unlawful gambling operation escapes the tax and licensing net.

The figures in the case are large but need care. The Rs 1,245.64 crore is the ED's estimate of proceeds of crime, not a quantified loss to identifiable victims; the Rs 284.5 crore frozen and Rs 117.41 crore attached are sums the agency has secured, not sums it has recovered and returned.

No money has been distributed to any user, and no confiscation has taken place. Whether any of the frozen or attached value is ultimately forfeited depends on confirmation of the attachment and the outcome of the proceedings.

Where It Stands Now

The matter is at the attachment stage. The 9 December 2025 provisional attachment must be placed before the PMLA Adjudicating Authority for confirmation within the statutory period, and any confirmation can be challenged before the Appellate Tribunal and the courts. No prosecution complaint or conviction was on the public record reviewed for this report.

Two threads run in parallel. The ED's PMLA investigation continues, with assets frozen and attached but not confiscated. Separately, the skill-versus-chance question that sits at the heart of the case is being litigated, as the Chhattisgarh High Court proceeding shows, and the arrival of the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 has changed the statutory backdrop for the whole category.

A provisional attachment contains allegations, not findings of guilt. The company and its promoters are presumed innocent until proven guilty, the company has said it is cooperating, and the attachment can be contested. Due process continues.

What It Means

The case marks a boundary being drawn around "prediction markets" and "opinion trading" in India, a category that borrowed the vocabulary of finance to sit outside the gambling label. The ED's action, and the new online-gaming law, together signal that the framing a platform chooses for itself does not settle how the law treats it; the substance of what users do with their money does.

For readers, two practical points follow. First, product labels are not legal classifications: whether an activity is skill or chance, gaming or gambling, is decided by law and, where disputed, by the courts, not by a brand's marketing. Second, an attachment is a freeze, not a verdict; assets can be attached and later released, and none of it establishes individual guilt.

For how other PMLA attachments in the platform economy have moved through the stages, the Oquilia enforcement archive is tracking them, including the ED attachment of cricketers' and actors' assets in the 1xBet case and the attachment of Maa Saraswati Educational Trust's assets.

FAQ

Does this mean Probo or its promoters are guilty?

No. A provisional attachment and the underlying FIRs contain allegations, not findings of guilt. The company and its promoters are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and no court has convicted anyone. The company has said it is cooperating with the investigation, and the attachment must still be confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority.

What exactly did the ED do?

The ED froze about Rs 284.5 crore during searches on 8 and 9 July 2025 under Section 17 of the PMLA, and on 9 December 2025 provisionally attached assets worth about Rs 117.41 crore belonging to Probo Media Technologies and relatives of its directors. It has estimated proceeds of crime at about Rs 1,245.64 crore.

What is the dispute about opinion trading?

The ED alleges Probo's "opinion trading" was in substance binary wagering on event outcomes, a game of chance. The company has maintained its product is skill-based. In a separate case the Chhattisgarh High Court, at an interim stage, treated it as a game of skill. The classification remains legally contested.

Is a provisional attachment the same as confiscation?

No. It freezes assets so they cannot be moved while the case proceeds. It must be confirmed by the PMLA Adjudicating Authority and can be appealed. Ownership does not change unless a final order later directs forfeiture.

Did the platform stop operating?

Yes. According to the record, Probo stopped operations in August 2025 after the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 came into force. That is separate from the PMLA proceedings, which continue.

Where can I read the official record?

The Chhattisgarh High Court's 9 May 2025 order in the related proceeding, which sets out the competing skill-versus-gambling arguments, is published on Indian Kanoon and linked below.

This report is based on the Chhattisgarh High Court order dated 9 May 2025 in Probo Media Technologies Pvt Ltd's petition and the Enforcement Directorate's reported provisional attachment of 9 December 2025, reviewed on 31 July 2026.