Before reading the news, please understand that I neither have friendship with Sonu Sood nor enmity with Shahrukh Khan. I don’t have the capacity to have such relations with them. But the friendship and enmity that are due to the misdeeds of the system are all for you, for yourself. Now continue reading…
The current crackdown by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against illegal online betting apps in the country is no longer just a criminal investigation but has now become the subject of a national debate over surrogate advertising and celebrity responsibility. The facts that have emerged from the ED investigation show that the matter is not limited to betting only, but is also about selective enforcement of the law.
What did ED do in the current action
ED has so far registered money laundering cases related to betting and betting apps:
Assets worth around Rs 19 crore have been seized
These seizures include bank balance, cash, fixed deposits and digital transactions.
The seized amount is considered “proceeds of crime” under PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act)
According to the investigating agency, the promotion of banned betting apps in India was not done directly, but in the name of foreign companies, event promotion and brand endorsement.
How surrogate advertising worked
ED investigation revealed that:
Betting apps signed advertising contracts through foreign shell companies
Celebrities were reported to be promoting a “gaming”, “sports promotion” or “event”
In fact, the same promotion led Indian users to illegal betting platforms.
Payment shown as advertising fees, brand promotion and digital marketing charges
That is, the scam was not directly promoted, but its path was definitely cleared.
The properties of which names were confiscated
Under this action, properties of famous faces whose properties were seized by ED include:
Yuvraj Singh – Approximately ₹2.5 crore
Neha Sharma – Approximately ₹1.2 crore
sonu sood – Approximately ₹1 crore
ED argues that the source of this money was the same promotional activities which benefited illegal apps.
This is where the big question of ‘double standards’ arises.
If surrogate advertising itself is being considered as publicity related to legal offence, then the question is –
Pan masala and gutkha companies in the country have also been adopting the same model for years. The advertisement does not show the actual product but instead promotes things like cardamom, mouth freshener or “lifestyle brand”.
Big stars are seen in these advertisements, like:
Shahrukh Khan
Ajay Devgan
Akshay Kumar
Here also the general public knows very well that the advertisement is not of anything else but of tobacco product only. Yet, in these cases neither money laundering is investigated nor the issue of “proceeds of crime” arises.
Is the law only for some sectors?
This is the most serious question.
If surrogate advertising is wrong → then it must be wrong everywhere
If celebrity becomes responsible → then equal rules should be applied to every celebrity.
If promotion of betting apps is a crime → then why not apply the same criteria to hidden promotion of harmful products?
Today’s action by ED is sending a message that the scale of law is not equal for everyone.
conclusion
The current betting app case is not limited to just a few celebrities or the seizure of a few crores of rupees. It exposes the entire economy of surrogate advertising, its legality and double standards.
Unless the policy is clear and the law applies equally to all industries and all big names, people will continue to consider such actions not as justice but as selective actions.