Jacqueline Fernandez’s advocate said that the ED’s case hinges on her awareness of Sukesh Chandrashekhar’s criminal background, as reported in an article.
The Delhi High Court on Thursday reserved the order on actor Jacqueline Fernandez’s petition challenging the Enforcement Directorate’s complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The case revolves around allegations of her receiving lavish gifts from conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar.
The bench of Justice Anish Dayal reserved its decision after hearing extensively from both sides. Senior Advocate Sidharth Aggarwal represented Jacqueline, while Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain appeared on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
During arguments, Aggarwal contended that if the ED claims that money was distributed among 15 individuals, then by that logic, everyone involved—whether a grocery vendor, court officials, or lawyers—could be deemed guilty of money laundering. He questioned the premise that any financial transaction involving a criminal automatically constitutes money laundering, suggesting that such an interpretation would create undue fear.
Aggarwal further argued that the ED’s case hinges on Jacqueline’s awareness of Sukesh Chandrashekhar’s criminal background, as reported in a 2021 newspaper article. He asserted that merely being a celebrity does not imply prior knowledge of tainted funds. “Businessmen often have multiple cases against them,” he stated, adding that Jacqueline was introduced to Sukesh as a business tycoon. “Today, I am paying the price of being a celebrity,” Aggarwal concluded.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) argued that its investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, is separate and distinct from police investigations into scheduled offences. It emphasised that individuals accused of money laundering may differ from those charged in the predicate offence, given the distinct nature of the crime.
Previously, ED had opposed Jacqueline’s plea, submitting that she continued to receive Sukesh’s gifts despite being aware of his criminal antecedents. Perjury to quash the case in an attempt to stall proceedings.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal and Advocate Prashant Patil for Jacqueline had submitted that being in the public eye and being labelled as a money launderer is problematic. My prayer is not to quash the complaint completely, it’s only qua the present applicant (Jacqueline). Sukesh is sitting in jail and carrying out extortion and fraud from there. EOW comes to me, records my statement, and finds that what I have to say is relevant to their investigation. ED has filed four complaints, but the investigation is still going on, and the trial cannot start, said Sr Adv Siddharth Aggarwal.
Jacqueline has filed a petition seeking the quashing of the ECIR (equivalent to an FIR) and the supplementary chargesheet filed by the ED in connection with the ₹200 crore money laundering case.
