ED action against Sonu Sood, Yuvraj and Neha Sharma, the whole matter will be understood only when the names of Shahrukh, Akshay and Ajay Devgan appear in the next list.

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 action by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against illegal online betting apps in the country is no longer just a criminal investigation, but now surrogate advertising And celebrity responsibility It has become the subject of a national debate. The facts that have emerged from the ED investigation show that the matter is not limited to betting only, but Selective Enforcement of Law Is also of.

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 seized are of

• These seizures include bank balance, cash, fixed deposits and digital transactions.

• the amount seized PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) under “Proceeds of crime” It is assumed

According to the investigating agency, promotion of betting apps banned in India not straightbut was done in the name of foreign companies, event promotion and brand endorsement.

How surrogate advertising worked

ED investigation revealed that:

• betting apps foreign shell companies advertising contracts through

• 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

i.e, Direct scam not promotedbut his 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 only surrogate advertising Publicity related to legal crime If it is believed, then the question is –

in the country for years Pan masala and gutkha companies has also been adopting the same model. 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 for anything else but a tobacco product onlyYet, 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 must be wrong everywhere

• If celebrity becomes responsible → then Equal rules should apply to every celebrity

• If promotion of betting app is a crime → then Why not have the same criteria for hidden promotion of harmful products?

Today’s action by ED is sending a message that The scale of law is not equal for all,

conclusion

The current betting app case is not limited to just a few celebrities or the seizure of a few crores of rupees. it The entire economy of surrogate advertisingits legal validity and double standards exposes.

Unless the policy is clear and the law Will not apply equally to all industries and all big namesTill then, people will continue to consider such actions not as justice but as selective action.