Heroine Claims She Didn’t Know Gifts Were Part of Crime

Bollywood actor Jacqueline Fernandez’s advocate claimed that she was unaware of the illicit origin of gifts she received, which are allegedly part of a ₹200 crore money laundering case, involving conman Sukesh Chandrashekar.

The advocate conveyed this information in the Delhi High Court, which was hearing to the arguments on behalf of Bollywood actor Jacqueline Fernandez.

Fernandez challenged the charge sheet filed against her in the ₹200 crore money laundering case.

Her advocate argued that she was not involved in the offence of money laundering and that she was unaware that the gifts she received were part of the alleged proceeds of the crime.

To this, Justice Anish Dayal raised a query, “Whether there is a duty upon an adult person to know the source of gift one receives.”

The case was adjourned and listed on November 26 for further arguments.

Senior advocate Siddharth Agrawal said his client was not aware that the gifts she recieved were part of the proceeds of extortion of Aditi Singh by Sukesh Chandrasekar.

The ED filed a case that she was aware that gifts she received were part of proceeds of crime and the counsel submitted that there was an omission on her part, but it was not an illegal omission. Therefore not actionable in law.

The ED has alleged that Jacqueline did not verify the newspaper article about Sukesh Chandrasekar. She received gifts from Sukesh. It was submitted that Jacqueline Fernandez came across the newspaper article in February 2019. However, the newspaper article is not evidence.

Fernandez was convinced by the co-accused Pinky Irani that Sukesh had high political connections and was a political fixer. He received phone calls from the Home Ministry office. The senior advocate submitted that Chandrasekar was made a scapegoat for his political connections.

The advocate also submitted that after coming across the newspaper article, Jacqueline had stopped communication with Sukesh Chandrasekar.

However, she has no knowledge that the gifts received were part of the proceeds of the crime. She was also not involved in the money laundering, the senior counsel added.