As a devoted fan who has followed Jacqueline Fernandez’s career from her days in “Alone” to her recent stint in “Bachchan Pandey,” it’s disheartening to see her name entangled in such complex legal matters. It’s important to remember that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and I firmly believe in Jacqueline’s innocence.
For some time now, it has been rumored that Jacqueline Fernandez is associated with conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar. However, Jacqueline herself has consistently denied any connections to the illegal activities linked to Sukesh’s name. Currently, her lawyer claims that Jacqueline was oblivious to Sukesh’s illicit dealings and should not be charged in the money laundering case.
According to reports from ANI, Jacqueline Fernandez’s lawyer recently made a case before the Delhi High Court. They argued that anyone who profits financially from illegal activities could face charges for money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. However, since the actress was not involved in any criminal activity for personal gain, she cannot be accused of money laundering.
In response to Jacqueline’s plea, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) will present its arguments in court regarding the money laundering case charge sheet. According to reports, Justice Anish Dayal has taken up the matter for hearings and a Special Counsel for ED will make submissions. The next court date is set for December 3rd.
The lead attorney added emphasis on the point that the actress was unaware that the presents she received from Sukesh Chandrashekhar were obtained through illegally acquired funds totaling ₹200 crore from Aditi Singh. Meanwhile, her legal representative brought up the case of Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary and argued that property discovered during the investigation may not always be connected to the proceeds of the crime.
Significantly, lawyers Siddharth Agarwal, Prashant Patil, and Shakti Pandey represented Jacqueline Fernandez, while Zoheb Hossain acted as counsel for the Enforcement Directorate in this case.
It was argued that if two cases involve identical facts, neither can be challenged. A case of extortion involving Aditi Singh is being tried under MCOCA (Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act). The petitioner is a witness in this case. Therefore, it’s not possible to accuse her of money laundering since she isn’t linked to the criminal organization and didn’t benefit economically from the crime.
A short while ago, Jacqueline contested the indictment document presented in the 200-crore money laundering case, asserting that she was oblivious to the questionable source of the presents she received.
Read More
- XRP Price Eyes $2 Support Level Amidst Market Correction
- 15 Charged for converting Drug Cartels’ Cash into Cryptocurrency in U.S.
- OREO Unveils Six New Products for 2025
- ‘Fast and Furious’ Star Paul Walker Remembered 11 Years After His Death
- Russell T Davies Says He “Kind Of Hopes” The Streaming Bubble Will “Pop”
- Apple Lands Anya Taylor-Joy Led Drama ‘Lucky,’ Based on Bestseller
- Google’s Willow Quantum Chip Sparks Bitcoin Security Debate
- Paul Atkins to Replace Gary Gensler as Next SEC Chair?
- Amazon Shareholders Demand Bitcoin Investment for Stability
- Crypto VC funding roundup: Riot snags over $594m, BVNK raises $50m
2024-11-27 10:37