New Delhi: Bollywood actor Jacqueline Fernandez was knowingly involved in the possession and use of proceeds of crime of alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has contended before the Delhi High Court.
The ED’s contention was made in an affidavit filed in response to Fernandez’s plea seeking quashing of an FIR against her in the Rs 200 crore money laundering case allegedly involving Chandrasekhar, news agency PTI reported.
The matter was listed before Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri and the counsel representing Ms Fernandez sought time to file a rejoinder in response to the ED’s affidavit. The high court listed the matter for further hearing on April 15.
What else the ED said
- Fernandez never revealed the truth regarding the financial transactions with Chandrasekhar and always concealed facts until confronted with evidence.
“She continues to hold back the truth even till date. It is also a fact that Fernandez wiped out the entire data from her mobile phone after the arrest of Chandrasekhar, thereby tampering with the evidence. She also asked her colleagues to destroy the evidence. Evidence proves beyond doubt that she had been enjoying, using and is in possession of proceeds of crime. Thus, it is proved that Fernandez was knowingly involved in the possession and use of proceeds of crime of accused Chandrasekhar,” it said.
- Initially in her statements, the actor tried to cover up her conduct by claiming that she has been the victim of Chandrasekhar, however, during investigation, she failed to provide any substantial material to establish victimisation by him, the report added.
- She was aware of the criminal antecedents of Chandrasekhar, still she continued to receive, enjoy and possess proceeds of crime for herself and her family members. The ED said initially Fernandez did not admit to receiving huge sums of money and valuable gifts from him for her family in India and abroad and added that these luxury items were proceeds of crime being generated out of criminal activity.
- She was also aware of the fact that Leena Maria Paul is his wife but despite this, she continued the relationship with him and also received financial benefits from him which are nothing but proceeds of crime.
Regarding the submission of Fernandez that she has been presented as a prosecution witness in the predicate offence in which the FIR was lodged by the Special Cell of Delhi Police and cannot be made an accused in the money laundering case, the ED said the definition of the offence of money laundering does not stipulate that to trigger section 3 of PMLA, a person should also be proved to be involved in predicate offence besides his involvement in the offence of money laundering.
The ED has also opposed the petition on the ground of maintainability, saying a special court has taken cognisance of the prosecution complaint (chargesheet) and taken a view that a prima facie case is made out to be proceeded with, and there is no challenge to the cognisance order.
Ms Fernandez said in her plea, “At the outset it is submitted that evidence filed by the ED would prove that the petitioner (Fernandez) is an innocent victim of Chandrasekhar’s maliciously targeted attack. There is absolutely no indication that she had any involvement whatsoever in aiding him to launder his purportedly ill-gotten wealth. Hence, she cannot be prosecuted for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.”
It said the prosecution complaint filed against her confirmed that nowhere it has been alleged that she knew about the nefarious activities of Chandrasekhar in extorting money from complainant Aditi Singh.
“The entire complaint is silent about even a remote allegation of knowledge as attributed to the petitioner. It is impossible to suggest that the petitioner knowingly engaged in any of the activities that is today punished by Section 3 of the PMLA,” the plea said.
She alleged that the ED had acted in a partisan manner while arraigning her as an accused in the money laundering case.
