1 week Ago By Fengyen Chiu
Bollywood actor Jacqueline Fernandez found herself back in the legal spotlight as her counsel presented arguments before the Delhi High Court on Wednesday. Fernandez is challenging the charge sheet filed against her in the high-profile ₹200 crore money laundering case involving alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekar. Her legal team contends that she was not involved in any criminal activity and was unaware that the luxurious gifts she received were linked to the proceeds of crime.
Justice Anish Dayal posed a question during the hearing, “Is there a responsibility on the part of an adult to ascertain the source of gifts received?” This query underlined a central issue in the case — whether Jacqueline, as a recipient of the gifts, had a duty to investigate their origin. A post shared by Jacqueliene Fernandez (@jacquelienefernandez) Jacqueline’s senior advocate, Siddharth Agrawal, supported by Prashant Patil and Shakti Pandey, argued that the actor had no knowledge that the expensive items gifted to her were purchased with money allegedly obtained through illegal means. They emphasized that the gifts were facilitated by Pinky Irani, who convinced Jacqueline of Sukesh Chandrashekar’s influential political connections, portraying him as a well-connected businessman rather than a criminal.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has claimed that Jacqueline continued accepting gifts from Sukesh even after a newspaper article surfaced in February 2019, detailing his alleged illegal activities. However, her counsel dismissed this argument, stating that “a newspaper article is not substantial evidence.” Agrawal noted that Jacqueline ceased contact with Sukesh upon encountering the media report, signaling her lack of involvement and unawareness of any criminal activity.
The ED’s case hinges on the premise that Jacqueline Fernandez accepted gifts from Sukesh Chandrashekar, who is accused of extorting ₹200 crore from Aditi Singh, the wife of former Ranbaxy promoter Shivinder Singh. The lavish gifts included designer handbags, jewelry, and luxury cars, raising suspicions about their origin. However, Jacqueline’s defense maintains that she had no reason to suspect any wrongdoing and was manipulated into believing Sukesh’s façade of wealth and political influence.
Agrawal argued, “Jacqueline was made a scapegoat due to Sukesh’s portrayal as a politically connected individual, with claims that he received calls from high-ranking officials, including the Home Ministry office.” The court has scheduled the next hearing for November 26, where further arguments will be heard. Jacqueline Fernandez’s legal team is likely to continue emphasizing her lack of knowledge about the criminal origins of the gifts and her eventual decision to cut ties with Sukesh Chandrashekar.
.
