New Delhi: Since her claim of being unaware of the extortion racket run by jailed conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar is yet to be proved, the Delhi High Court dismissed Bollywood actor Jacqueline Fernandez’ plea for quashing charges against her.
The actor had told the court that she had no idea about the alleged racket, nor did she know the source of the money used by Chandrasekhar to buy her expensive gifts. But the court pointed out that this was yet to be verified. Moreover, the court did not refute the allegations of the Enforcement Directorate that Jacqueline chose to “brush under the carpet” a newspaper article highlighting the criminal status of Chandrasekhar and continued to receive lavish gifts for herself and her family until his arrest.
The court was disposing Jacqueline’s plea to quash the ED’s case against her, in which he has been questioned at least five times by the agency’s sleuths. She was granted bail by the lower court in November 2022. The following year, she moved the Delhi High Court to seek closure of the PMLA case against her.
The money laundering investigation stems from a case filed by Aditi Shivinder Singh, wife of the former promoter of Religare and pharmaceutical giant Ranbaxy, Shivinder Mohan Singh, in August 2021.
Chandrashekhar allegedly duped Aditi Shivinder Singh to the tune of Rs 200 crore, and based on her complaint, the Delhi Police Special Cell had registered a case under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code—1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 66D of Information Technology Act, 2000—against unknown suspects on 7 August 2021.
The ED had opened an Enforcement Complaint Information Report the following day.
“Whether Petitioner knew that what was received were ‘proceeds of crime’ is yet again an aspect tethered to establishing petitioner’s ‘knowledge’ regarding criminal antecedents of Sukesh and the credibility of assertion that she was completely persuaded and misled by Pinky Irani to ignore it. The nuance that petitioner’s counsel is attempting to draw between knowledge of criminality and knowledge that articles were proceeds of crime may not be disjunctive issues sitting in two separate silos,” Justice Anish Dayal observed in the order.
“Attribution of knowledge for the purposes of PMLA implication may potentially bring in its fold the full range, spectrum and degrees of “knowing”. For example, whether turning a blind eye to an obvious fact or disturbing news or a critical disclosure of illegality, would amount to “knowing” or not is a matter that, in this Court’s opinion, can be determined post-trial, when the Court has all strands of evidence for appreciation,” he further documented.
Also read: Conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar pitches $2 bn investment to Elon Musk for X, from jail
‘Ignorance’ versus push to ‘brush things under the carpet’
After recording the ECIR, the agency had recorded statements of Jacqueline on at least five occasions between August 2021 and June 2022 regarding gifts she had received from the syndicates of Chandrasekhar.
In her petition before the Delhi High Court, the actor claimed ignorance of the alleged extortion syndicate, citing that she was only listed as a prosecution witness in the predicate offence probed by the Delhi Police.
A predicate offence is a criminal case registered by law enforcement agencies that form the basis of a money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act of 2002.
Counter to her claims of ignorance of Sukesh’s criminal status, the agency countered that she was alerted about the criminal history through a newspaper article from February 2020 by her makeup artist, Shaan Muttathil.
It was Muttathil through whom Sukesh established contact with Jacqueline, with the help of his aide, Pinky Irani, in January 2021. However, according to ED, she chose to ignore the “robust” suspicion that criminality was involved and continued receiving gifts.
“It could very well be that the prosecution is able to establish in its favour that the petitioner ignored the newspaper article completely, or took Pinky Irani’s assertions at face value but retained the lurking suspicion that Sukesh was an offender, or that she chose to push these issues under the carpet, knowingly and consciously, in order to continue to receive the benefit of the gifts that she was receiving. All these are evidently a matter of trial,” the court noted.
The agency countered that between February 2021, when the actress was first introduced to Sukesh, including through video calls on WhatsApp, and June of the same year, funds were transferred to her sister’s and brother’s accounts. During the same time, Sukesh and Jacqueline met in June 2021 when the former was on parole.
The gifts included a diamond ring in February 2021 through Irani, which she brought while attempting to convince Jacqueline of her clean record, as well as luxury cars for her family members. Moreover, the agency also countered that Jacqueline never shared the true extent of the gifts and financial benefits she received from Sukesh unless confronted with evidence.
“By any normal standards, as per ED, this would have been enough to alert a person about the criminal antecedents of Sukesh. However, ED submits that the petitioner chose to bury this under the carpet and ignore it, pursuant to what she alleges as aggressive persuasion by Pinky Irani to disabuse her of the opinion. During this time, from February 2021 till July 2021, the petitioner and her family continued to receive articles and gifts from the accused Sukesh,” the judge documented the ED’s objection.
Additionally, the agency also submitted that even after the newspaper article was pointed out to her, the actor did not bother to verify the authenticity of other tall claims made by Sukesh, such as ownership of ‘Kalyan Jewellers’ or ‘coal mines’, or even “50 percent ownership of Chennai’s Leela Hotel”, which were made to her.
The agency also cited her admission that she had deleted data from her mobile phone and asked her associates to do the same, highlighting her misconduct during the investigation.
(Edited by Viny Mishra)
Also read: Jacqueline Fernandez offers prayers at Siddhivinayak Temple with Elon Musk’s mother Maye
Jacqueline’s visa must be cancelled. No work permit should be issued to her.