The Delhi High Court has reserved its order on Jacqueline Fernandez’s plea challenging the money laundering case linked to conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar. Fernandez said she is “paying the price of being a celebrity” despite no direct role in the Rs.200 crore scam.
The Delhi High Court reserved its decision regarding actor Jacqueline Fernandez’s petition challenging the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
This case involves allegations that she received extravagant gifts from conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar. Justice Anish Dayal presided over the hearing, during which both parties presented extensive arguments.
Senior Advocate Sidharth Aggarwal, representing Fernandez, argued that if the ED claims money was distributed among 15 individuals, then logically, anyone involved be it a grocery vendor, court officials, or lawyers could be implicated in money laundering.
He questioned the assumption that any financial transaction linked to a criminal automatically qualifies as money laundering, warning that such an interpretation could instill unwarranted fear. Aggarwal also asserted that the ED’s case relies on whether Fernandez was aware of Chandrashekhar’s criminal past, as highlighted in a 2021 newspaper article.
He maintained that simply being a celebrity does not mean one possesses prior knowledge of illicit funds, stating, “Businessmen often have multiple cases against them,” and emphasized that Fernandez was introduced to Chandrashekhar as a business mogul.
He concluded,
“Today, I am paying the price of being a celebrity.”
The Enforcement Directorate contended that its investigation under the PMLA, 2002, is separate from police inquiries into scheduled offenses.
Also Read: Jacqueline Fernandez Withdraws Court Plea Against Sukesh Chandrashekhar’s Extortion Case
They stressed that those accused of money laundering may not necessarily be the same individuals charged with the underlying crime, considering the unique nature of money laundering.
The ED previously opposed Jacqueline’s petition, arguing that she continued to accept gifts from Sukesh despite being aware of his criminal history. They suggested that she was attempting to delay proceedings by filing for perjury to quash the case.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal and Advocate Prashant Patil, representing Jacqueline, expressed concerns about the implications of being labeled a money launderer in the public eye.
They clarified that their intention was not to completely quash the complaint but to seek relief specifically for Jacqueline.
They noted that Sukesh is currently imprisoned and continues to engage in extortion and fraud from behind bars. Aggarwal remarked that the Economic Offenses Wing (EOW) had approached him, recorded relevant statements, and highlighted that the ED had filed four complaints while the investigation remains ongoing, preventing the trial from commencing.
Jacqueline Fernandez has filed a petition aimed at quashing the ECIR (equivalent to an FIR) and the supplementary chargesheet submitted by the ED in connection with the Rs 200 crore money laundering case.
In her plea, she asserts that the evidence provided by the ED will demonstrate that she is an innocent victim of Sukesh Chandrashekhar’s malicious targeting, indicating no involvement in facilitating the laundering of his allegedly ill-gotten wealth.
Therefore, she believes she cannot be prosecuted under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.