Enforcement Directorate Accuses Jacqueline Fernandez of Willfully Using Money from Suspected Conman

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has argued before the Delhi High Court that Bollywood actress Jacqueline Fernandez, who is facing charges in a Rs 200 crore money laundering case, was knowingly engaged in the possession and use of suspected conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar's profits of crime.

In an affidavit submitted in response to Fernandez's appeal asking for the quashing of a FIR against her in the suspected money laundering case involving Chandrasekhar, the ED stated its claim.

When the case was brought before Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, Fernandez's attorney requested more time to submit a reply in response to the ED's affidavit.

The issue was scheduled for a follow-up hearing by the supreme court on April 15.

In response, the ED said that Fernandez consistently withheld information until presented with proof and never told the truth about the financial dealings with Chandrasekhar.

"She still withholds the truth to this day. It is also a known that Fernandez tampered with the evidence by wiping away all of the data from her phone after Chandrasekhar's detention. She also requested that the evidence be destroyed by her coworkers. There is no question in the evidence that she has been utilizing, enjoying, and in possession of money from criminal activity. It is thus shown that Fernandez had knowledge of the accused Chandrasekhar's custody and use of the profits of his crime," the statement said.

The agency added that while the actress first attempted to hide her behavior by saying that Chandrasekhar was her victim, she was unable to provide any credible evidence to support her victimization throughout the inquiry.

It said that even though she was aware of Chandrasekhar's criminal past, she yet accepted, enjoyed, and held onto the profits of crime for her family.

According to the ED, Fernandez first denied accepting enormous amounts of money and priceless presents from him for her family in India and outside. She also claimed that these opulent gifts were the earnings of illegal activities.

Regarding Fernandez's claim that she cannot be charged in the money laundering case because she was presented as a prosecution witness in the predicate offence for which the Special Cell of Delhi Police filed a FIR, the ED stated that the definition of the offence of money laundering does not require that a person be proven to have been involved in a predicate offence in addition to the money laundering offence in order to trigger section 3 of the PMLA.

The investigative agency said that while Fernandez was fully aware of Chandrasekhar's criminal history and that Leena Maria Paul is his wife, she nonetheless went on her relationship with him and accepted financial advantages from him that are nothing more than the profits of crime.

In addition, the ED has objected to the petition on the grounds of maintainability, claiming that no one is contesting the special court's decision to take cognizance of the prosecution complaint (charge sheet) and continue with the case since it seems to have a strong basis.

"It is submitted that evidence filed by the ED would prove that the petitioner (Fernandez) is an innocent victim of Chandrasekhar's maliciously targeted attack," Fernandez said in her appeal. There is not the slightest hint that she assisted him in the process of laundering his alleged illicit gains. She cannot, therefore, be charged with violating Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act." The prosecution's allegation against her, according to the statement, verified that she was not aware of Chandrasekhar's illicit acts, which included extorting money from complainant Aditi Singh.

"Not even the slightest suggestion of knowledge attributable to the petitioner is included in the whole complaint. The plea said that it is difficult to imply that the petitioner intentionally participated in any of the actions that are now prohibited under Section 3 of the PMLA.

She said that she was completely ignorant of the primary extortion crime, known as the predicate offense, carried out by Chandrasekhar and his companions.

She claimed that during her arraignment as an accused in the money laundering case, the ED had behaved in a biased way.

"Even though it is a documented fact that Sukesh Chandrasekhar gave her family member a BMW automobile on her orders, the ED has cleared Nora Fatehi, another Bollywood star. It is noteworthy that Sukesh Chandrasekhar's gifting of Nora Fatehi has been reported to the Enforcement Department (ED) under the heading of "dissipation of proceeds of crime."

Fernandez has been questioned by the ED as part of the money laundering probe against Chandrasekhar and other individuals.

Chandrasekhar was previously the subject of a formal complaint filed by the Delhi Police for allegedly defrauding the wives of former Ranbaxy founders, Shivinder Singh and Malvinder Singh, out of a total of Rs 200 crore. Investigations into him are still underway in a number of incidents around the nation.

Chandrasekhar and his spouse Leena Maria Paul were previously detained by Delhi Police and are now being prosecuted in a money laundering case filed with the Enforcement Directorate.

In this instance, the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) has also been used by the police.

Paul and Chandrasekhar, along with others, were accused by the Delhi Police of using hawala networks and setting up shell businesses to hide the money obtained as proceeds of crime.

Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Press Time staff and has been published from a syndicated feed.