New Delhi: Opposing Jacqueline Fernandez’s plea to turn approver in the money-laundering case involving her and alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar, the Enforcement Directorate called the actor a “significant beneficiary” of the proceeds of crime, and rejected her claims of innocence.
The agency told a Delhi court Monday that Fernandez remained in “regular and sustained contact” with Chandrashekhar, despite being aware of his criminal antecedents and continued accepting gifts which were nothing but proceeds of crime.
ThePrint reported last month that Jacqueline had moved a plea before the special court to turn approver in the case, assuring “full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within her knowledge” related to the case. Officials at the agency had already indicated that her plea would be opposed.
The ED’s case against Chandrashekhar is based on an FIR registered by the Delhi Police’s Economic Offences Wing (EOW), in which he is accused of cheating and extorting Aditi Singh, the wife of former Religare Enterprises promoter Shivinder Mohan Singh.
Shivinder Singh was arrested in October 2019 in a case related to the alleged misappropriation of funds at Religare Finvest Ltd.
According to ED officials, Chandrashekhar allegedly duped Aditi Singh by posing as a government official and promising to secure bail for her husband.
In 2020, he allegedly impersonated then law secretary Anup Kumar and home secretary Ajay Bhalla to extort Rs 215 crore from her. He is also accused of claiming that her conversations were being monitored by the home minister and the prime minister.
Investigators say Chandrashekhar used the proceeds of crime to buy expensive gifts for Jacqueline, including Hermès bags worth lakhs, diamond jewellery from Tiffany, and even gifted her exotic cats and horses, which were sent via carriers.
“…the Applicant remained in regular and sustained contact with Sukesh Chandrashekhar (Accused No.1) even after having knowledge of his criminal antecedents, who carefully arranged all benefits, gifts and articles for the Applicant out of the ‘proceeds of crime’ involved in the offence of money laundering,” the agency submitted in its response to the actor’s plea.
“This consistent interaction through numerous ways of communication and receipt of benefits negates any claim of being an ‘unwitting victim’ as underlined by the Applicant in the present application and instead highlights her conscious association with the main perpetrator and with the illicit gains.”
Also Read: 2 meetings, video calls, gifts — inside story of actor Jacqueline & ‘conman’ Sukesh ‘love affair’
‘Conscious disregard towards source of funds’
In July 2025, the actor had approached the Delhi High Court, seeking to quash the case against her, but her plea was dismissed. She had told the court that she had no knowledge of Chandrashekhar’s business dealings or alleged criminal activities, and was unaware of the source of the money he used to buy her expensive gifts.
Rejecting her plea, the court observed that whether she was aware of the source of the money is yet to be verified.
In its response to her plea for approver, the ED alleged that she made a “conscious disregard” towards the source of funds used for valuable gifts to her and her family members, including funds transferred to the bank accounts maintained by her sister and brother based abroad and cars purchased for her parents in Bahrain.
The ED for the longest had maintained that Jacquilene chose to “brush under the carpet” a newspaper article highlighting Chandrashekhar’s criminal background and continued to receive lavish gifts for herself and her family until his arrest.
The agency also urged the court to junk her plea to turn approver, citing section 343 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Jacqueline’s case was different, the agency argued, alleging that her role is not limited to a minor participant but that of a “significant beneficiary”.
“That the primary objective of Section 306 Cr.P.C. / Section 343 BNSS is to secure evidence from a less culpable accused to prosecute the more culpable ones, especially when such evidence is otherwise difficult to obtain. In the present case, the Applicant’s role is not that of a minor participant, but that of a significant beneficiary of the proceeds of crime and an active participant in the money laundering scheme under PMLA, 2002,” the agency told the court.
Granting her the position of an Approver in the present case would be a miscarriage of justice and would undermine the gravity of the offence she has committed, it said.
(Edited by Ajeet Tiwari)