The 1xBet ED case: what has been attached, and what is still undecided

The 1xBet case is a money-laundering investigation by the Enforcement Directorate into an offshore betting platform it says ran in India without authorisation. By 2 Mar 2026 the ED said it had provisionally attached assets worth about ₹37.23 crore, including assets of former cricketers, actors and a cricket-app publisher. A provisional attachment is an interim freeze under the PMLA. It isn't a finding of guilt.

What is the 1xBet ED case about?

The ED's press release of 2 Mar 2026 says its investigation found 1xBet was operating in India without authorisation and promoting illegal online betting and gambling through multiple mirror websites. It says the platform collected money through dynamically generated UPI IDs linked to mule bank accounts, which hid who really received the money. That's the same pattern I4C warns about in the mule account guide. The ED registered its case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act after police FIRs, according to the Delhi High Court order described below.

The Indian Express, reporting the same release on 2 Mar 2026, said the probe also covers what it called 1xBet's surrogate brands, 1xBat and 1xBat Sporting Lines. Surrogate branding is when a betting company advertises under a similar name that looks like a news, sports or 'lines' brand.

Whose assets has the ED attached?

Zee Business reported on 6 Nov 2025 that the ED had attached assets worth ₹11.14 crore of former cricketers Suresh Raina and Shikhar Dhawan. It said these were mutual fund investments in Raina's name and a property in Dhawan's name. The Hindu reported on 2 Mar 2026 that in December 2025 the ED had attached ₹7.93 crore of assets of Yuvraj Singh, Robin Uthappa, Urvashi Rautela, Sonu Sood, Mimi Chakraborty, Ankush Hazra and Neha Sharma. The agency alleged they knowingly signed endorsement deals with foreign entities to promote 1xBet through surrogates, paid through routes meant to hide the source.

Those are the ED's allegations. They haven't been tested in a trial on the record this page read, and the people named can contest them before the Adjudicating Authority and the courts. Naming them here records who the ED said it acted against. It doesn't say they committed an offence.

Why were cricket app ads part of it?

The 2 Mar 2026 release concerns Parthtech Developers LLP, which the ED says runs the cricket platforms CREX and OneCricket. It says the firm signed structured advertising agreements with Bwise Media AG of Switzerland to promote betting platforms including 1xBet. It adds that statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA showed 1xBet ads were booked, geo-targeted and run on CREX through the firm's own ad server, Parth Adex. The ED attached ₹18.10 crore. That's the point where the ED put the case total at about ₹37.23 crore.

Since 1 May 2026, the Online Gaming Act separately bans advertising online money games, with penalties PIB described as up to two years or a fine of up to ₹50 lakh. The Act explainer has those details. The ED's attachments came under the PMLA and relate to earlier conduct, so don't read them as cases under the 2025 Act.

What did the Delhi High Court say?

Parthtech and its founder challenged the ₹18.10 crore attachment in a writ petition. A summary of the order published by Taxguru on 26 Aug 2026 says the Delhi High Court dismissed it. The court found no manifest lack of jurisdiction, pointing to FIRs that included cheating, a scheduled offence under the PMLA. It held that disputed questions, such as how much of the money related to ads aimed at users outside India, belonged before the Adjudicating Authority. All rights and contentions were left open. In other words, the court didn't decide whether the money is proceeds of crime. It sent the fight to the statutory forum.

What happens next?

A provisional attachment goes to the PMLA Adjudicating Authority, which decides whether to confirm it. A confirmation can be appealed to the Appellate Tribunal and then to the courts. The ED's March release said further investigation was under way. This page didn't find a public record of a confirmed attachment or a prosecution complaint against the celebrities on 10 Nov 2026. If that changes, the facts here will be updated on this URL.

What does the case mean for ordinary users?

The ED's description is a warning in itself. Money paid to the platform went to UPI IDs that changed and to accounts held in other people's names. If a deposit goes wrong, there's no licensed company in India to complain to, and the account that took your money may already be frozen. If you lost money, report it at cybercrime.gov.in or on 1930. If your own account was frozen because betting money passed through it, the account freeze guide explains the grievance route. Another app investigation, still allegations rather than a verdict, is the Mahadev case guide. MatkaFlash publishes results only and never links to betting platforms.

1. Don't rent out your bank account or UPI ID for a commission.
2. Don't deposit through a UPI ID or QR code sent in a chat.
3. Report money lost at cybercrime.gov.in or on 1930.
4. Check the date and source of any 'ED news' before sharing it.