Delhi High Court Seeks ED's Response On Plea By Jacqueline Fernandez Seeking Quashing Of Money Laundering Case

The Delhi High Court on Thursday sought response of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on a plea moved by Bollywood actress Jacqueline Fernandez seeking quashing of Rs. 200 crores money laundering case involving alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar.

Justice Jyoti Singh issued notice on Fernandez's plea seeking quashing of ED's ECIR as well as the second supplementary complaint arraigning her as the tenth accused in the case.

Special counsel Zoheb Hossian appearing for ED objected to the maintainability of the plea, submitting that when there is no challenge to the order of cognizance taken by the special judge, challenge to the prosecution complaint is not maintainable.

Hossain further submitted that the special court in the order of cognizance had taken a view that prima facie case is made out against the actress and it is a fit case to be proceeded with.

“Without challenge to the order of cognizance, with such a view, challenge to the prosecution complaint is not maintainable,” he said.

On the other hand, Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal appearing for the actress said that the prayers in the plea covers every order passed in the criminal proceedings and that the order of cognizance has got nothing to do with Fernandez.

The matter will now be heard on January 29.

In her plea, the actress has said that the evidence filed by ED would prove that she is an “innocent victim” of Sukesh Chandrashekhar's “maliciously targeted attack.”

“There is absolutely no indication the she had any involvement whatsoever in aiding him to launder his purportedly ill-gotten wealth. Hence, she cannot be prosecuted for the offenses under Section 3, and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002,” the plea said.

It adds that is an admitted case of ED that the Tihar jail officials provided Sukesh Chandrashekhar unrestricted access to mobile phones and other technology which was used by him to con the original complainant and many film artists including her with an identical modus operandi.

It has also been submitted that once ED, in its discretion, has presented Fernandez as a Prosecution Witness in the predicate offence, it logically follows that any proceedings arising as a consequence of the same should be quashed.

“The fact that the Petitioner's statement has been recorded as a prosecution witness in the predicate offense naturally leads to a favorable conclusion in her favor. This supports the contention that she had no knowledge whatsoever of the predicate offense committed by the main accused, Sukesh Chandrashekhar, and his associates,” the plea adds.

Furthermore, the actress has averred that subjecting her to trial for money laundering based solely on ED's “unsubstantiated assumptions”, devoid of any concrete documentary evidence, is unwarranted and unjust.

“…it is crucial to note that the Directorate of Enforcement itself uses the phrase "could have," indicating a lack of concrete evidence to establish that the Petitioner was indeed aware of Sukesh's incarceration. While the Petitioner acknowledges that she could have been more vigilant, this alone does not render her a criminal under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002,” the plea adds.

Title: JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT