Delhi court charges Sukesh, Jacqueline in ₹200 crore money laundering case

ANew delhi margaret court on wed officially supercharged alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekar and Bollywood actor Jacqueline Fernandez in ₹200 crore money laundering case being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).Charges were formally framed by special judge Prashant Sharma of Patiala House courts against Chandrasekar and Fernandez under section 3 (money laundering) and section 4 (punishment) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) after they appeared before the court in response to summons issued against them.Both the accused pleaded not guilty before the court and claimed trial. There are 16 other accused in the PMLA case. The total number of accused is 18.The court also framed charges under section 3 (punishment for organised crime) and 4 (punishment for possessing unaccountable wealth) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) against Chandrasekar and 20 others in a parallel extortion case being probed by the Delhi police’s crime branch.In an in-camera hearing, Chandrasekar refused to sign the charge documents in the MCOCA case, arguing before the court that a supplementary chargesheet regarding a fresh arrestee, Mohd. Navas Ismail, has not been filed yet and a plea seeking postponement of the orders on charge on this ground was pending before the Delhi high court.Co-accused and Sukesh’s wife, Leena Paulose, also an accused in the money laundering case, signed the MCOCA charge document “under protest”, indicating her disagreement to the charges and preserving her legal rights to challenge the charge or dispute the process.Also Read:Delhi court frames charges against Sukesh, Jacqueline Fernandez in ₹200 crore extortion caseThe court had on May 30 said that there is prima facie sufficient material on record, raising strong suspicion that Chandrashekar committed offence under section 3 of PMLA, which is punishable under section 4 of PMLA.The court highlighted 36 pieces of crucial evidence against Chandrashekar, including testimonies, call detail records and chats recovered from phones of the complainant and the accused, to state that it “indicated the generation of proceeds of crime to the tune of ₹215 crores from Aditi Singh and the modus operandi of laundering the money”.The court further held that an equal prima facie suspicion is drawn from the evidence on record against Fernandez.The judge said that her own statements under section 50 of PMLA indicated the fact that “she admitted contact with Sukesh and receiving of gift and money from him”.The court termed the first argument as “meritless”, stating that it was a settled legal proposition that a person can be made an accused under PMLA even if he or she is not an accused in the scheduled offence.On her being aware of the gifts arising out of proceeds of crime, the court observed that the said contention has to be decided during the trial.In the Delhi police’s case, based on which the ED began its investigation, the court through a separate order said that there was prima facie suspicion of commission of offences under MCOCA due to confessional statements of Chandrasekar and other co-accused persons, which is admissible under section 18 of the Act.The ED’s case, based on the Delhi police MCOCA FIR from August 2021, alleges that Chandrashekhar and his associates extorted an amount of ₹200 crores from complainant Singh, wife of former Ranbaxy promoter Shivender Singh, during from during years 2020 and 2021, impersonating as a top central government official to arrange for her husband’s release on bail.The federal agency in its chargesheet, claimed that the extorted money was laundered through a network of shell companies and transactions with a portion of money being purportedly used to buy luxury gifts and assets.The original chargesheet named eight persons, including Chandrashekhar as the prime accused and intermediary Pinky Irani, through whom Chandrasekhar got in touch with actress Jacqueline Fernandez.ED named Fernandez as an accused in its supplementary prosecution complaint of August 17, 2022, wherein she was accused of being in possession of proceeds of crime in the form of various gifted articles, worth over ₹7 crore.Jacqueline’s counsels have consistently maintained that she was not aware of the criminal activities of Chandrashekhar and hence there was absence of any criminal intent.The ED had earlier this month opposed Fernandez’s plea to turn approver in the money laundering case, stating that she had actively benefited from the proceeds of crime and was now attempting to escape prosecution.The next date of hearing for prosecution evidence is July 14 for the MCOCA case and July 16 for the ED money laundering case.