/images/ppid_59c68470-image-177850002581254402.webp)
/images/ppid_59c68470-image-177823762808043711.webp)
What is the story about?
In a setback to Jacqueline Fernandez, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Monday rejected her plea to be made an approver in a ₹200 crore money laundering case under investigation. This case comes under the ambit of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
The actor had submitted the request last month in the matter, which centres around alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar as the main accused.
In the ongoing case, Fernandez has been accused of receiving high-value gifts from Chandrashekhar, said to have been her boyfriend at the time.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Prashant Sharma of the Patiala House Court on Monday sought Fernandez’s response to the ED’s submissions and fixed the next hearing for May 12.
OpposingFernandez’s application to turn approver, the ED has argued that her involvement in the case goes beyond that of a minor participant, alleging she substantially benefited from illicit funds and played an active role in the purported laundering operation.
According to the agency, she remained in ‘regular and sustained’ touch with Sukesh Chandrashekhar despite being aware of his criminal history. It maintained that allowing her to become an approver would undermine justice and weaken the gravity of the charges.
The agency has maintained thatChandrashekhar deliberately arranged for Fernandez to receive a range of benefits and gifts, which it claims were purchased using money derived from the proceeds of crime.
“That the applicant [Fernandez] was well aware of the criminal antecedents of the main accused, ie. Accused No.1 i.e. Sukesh Chandrashekhar. Despite this knowledge of his real identity and criminal background, she chose to continue her association and accept valuable benefits, possess, receive, use and enjoy the ‘proceeds of crime’ for herself and her family member, thereby demonstrating a conscious disregard for the source of funds and actively participating in the laundering process. Her claim of being a ‘victim’ is therefore self-serving and contrary to the evidence on record,” the ED said.
Investigators have also alleged that Fernandez’s cooperation has been limited, stating that she failed to provide complete and candid disclosures in five statements recorded during the probe.
Meanwhile, Chandrashekhar faces allegations of impersonating a top government official linked to the Prime Minister’s Office and Home Ministry, in an elaborate scheme that allegedly defrauded businesswoman Aditi Singh of nearly ₹200 crore over seven to eight months.
In the initial prosecution complaint lodged in December 2021, eight individuals were named, while Fernandez was not among those listed.
Fernandez has maintained that she cooperated with investigators, appearing before the ED five times and recording her statements under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
However, on August 17, 2022, the agency filed a supplementary complaint, in which Fernandez was formally added as an accused.
Fernandez’s attempt to get the case against her set aside was rejected by the High Court in July last year.
The actor had submitted the request last month in the matter, which centres around alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar as the main accused.
In the ongoing case, Fernandez has been accused of receiving high-value gifts from Chandrashekhar, said to have been her boyfriend at the time.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Prashant Sharma of the Patiala House Court on Monday sought Fernandez’s response to the ED’s submissions and fixed the next hearing for May 12.
OpposingFernandez’s application to turn approver, the ED has argued that her involvement in the case goes beyond that of a minor participant, alleging she substantially benefited from illicit funds and played an active role in the purported laundering operation.
According to the agency, she remained in ‘regular and sustained’ touch with Sukesh Chandrashekhar despite being aware of his criminal history. It maintained that allowing her to become an approver would undermine justice and weaken the gravity of the charges.
The agency has maintained thatChandrashekhar deliberately arranged for Fernandez to receive a range of benefits and gifts, which it claims were purchased using money derived from the proceeds of crime.
“That the applicant [Fernandez] was well aware of the criminal antecedents of the main accused, ie. Accused No.1 i.e. Sukesh Chandrashekhar. Despite this knowledge of his real identity and criminal background, she chose to continue her association and accept valuable benefits, possess, receive, use and enjoy the ‘proceeds of crime’ for herself and her family member, thereby demonstrating a conscious disregard for the source of funds and actively participating in the laundering process. Her claim of being a ‘victim’ is therefore self-serving and contrary to the evidence on record,” the ED said.
Investigators have also alleged that Fernandez’s cooperation has been limited, stating that she failed to provide complete and candid disclosures in five statements recorded during the probe.
Meanwhile, Chandrashekhar faces allegations of impersonating a top government official linked to the Prime Minister’s Office and Home Ministry, in an elaborate scheme that allegedly defrauded businesswoman Aditi Singh of nearly ₹200 crore over seven to eight months.
In the initial prosecution complaint lodged in December 2021, eight individuals were named, while Fernandez was not among those listed.
Fernandez has maintained that she cooperated with investigators, appearing before the ED five times and recording her statements under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
However, on August 17, 2022, the agency filed a supplementary complaint, in which Fernandez was formally added as an accused.
Fernandez’s attempt to get the case against her set aside was rejected by the High Court in July last year.
/images/ppid_a911dc6a-image-177849352949221990.webp)
/images/ppid_a911dc6a-image-177834026203412300.webp)
