Jacqueline Fernandez Money Laundering: Delhi HC reserves order on actress’ plea challenging case; ‘Paying the price of being celebrity’

by

The Delhi High Court delayed its decision on Jacqueline Fernandez‘s case, where she disputes the Enforcement Directorate’s complaint based on the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). This case is connected to accusations that Fernandez received expensive presents from suspect Sukesh Chandrashekhar, who is believed to be a fraudster. Through her attorney, Fernandez stated, “I’m facing consequences now for being a well-known figure.

In simpler terms, Judge Anish Dayal delayed his decision following presentations of arguments from both sides. Lawyer Siddharth Aggarwal was representing Jacqueline Fernandez in court, while Zoheb Hossain served as the legal representative for the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

At the hearing, Aggarwal contested the basis for the ED’s allegations by pointing out that if their argument about profiting from criminal activities is valid, it might also lead to accusations of money laundering against people like shopkeepers, court personnel, or legal professionals.

Aggarwal argued that the proposed line of thought could unfairly expand the boundaries of criminal responsibility and unwarrantedly stir up anxiety. He pointed out that the Enforcement Directorate’s case primarily rests on the assumption that Fernandez knew about Sukesh Chandrashekhar’s criminal background, using a news article from 2021 as evidence.

He made clear that just because someone is a public figure doesn’t automatically mean they possess previous connections to illegal sources of income. He further explained that many entrepreneurs face numerous lawsuits, using the example of Fernandez who was acquainted with Sukesh Chandrashekhar as a successful business magnate.

Instead of the ED’s argument, let me rephrase it for you: The Economic Department (ED) stated that their investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is separate and unique from regular police investigations into scheduled crimes. They explained that people implicated in money laundering might not be the same as those initially involved in the primary crime, due to the different legal frameworks governing each offense.

Previously, the Enforcement Department had rejected Fernandez’s plea, arguing that she intentionally accepted presents from Chandrashekhar despite being aware of his criminal past. The agency alleged that she employed legal maneuvers to postpone the legal proceedings.

In simpler terms, Senior Advocates Aggarwal and Patil, speaking on behalf of Fernandez, underlined the negative impact on her reputation, stressing that being labeled as a money launderer in public is highly detrimental. They made it clear that their plea aims to challenge only the personal proceedings against Fernandez, not the entire case itself.

Aggarwal emphasized that Chandrashekhar is currently imprisoned, yet allegedly continues to engage in fraudulent activities and extortion. He highlighted that the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) deemed Fernandez’s statements significant. However, despite the Enforcement Directorate (ED) submitting four complaints, the prolonged investigation has postponed the initiation of the trial.

In her petition, Fernandez is asking the court to dismiss or invalidate both the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) – similar to a First Information Report (FIR) – and the additional charge sheet submitted by the ED in relation to the Rs 200 crore money laundering case.

She contends that the data provided by the agency instead illustrates her innocence, indicating she was a victim of Chandrashekhar’s fraudulent strategies. In her viewpoint, there is no substantiation implicating her in helping him launder his supposedly illegal income, and thus, she should not face charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act).

Read More

2025-04-25 11:08