Jacqueline Fernandez faces fresh setback in money laundering case
The allegation is that, it was given to you as gifts. Nothing has been proved.
MUMBAI: A fresh setback awaits Bollywood diva Jacqueline Fernandez, who has been embroiled in a multi-million rupee extortion and money-laundering case, involving her alleged beau, conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar.
As reported by the Indian media, Jacqueline Fernandez, the witness in the high-profile money laundering case against Sukesh Chandrashekhar, who is being investigated by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) of India, moved the Supreme Court, seeking a stay on the trial, after the Delhi HC dismissed her plea this July.
However, a bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih dismissed the actor’s petition on Monday.
Read more: Actress Mahira Khan shares heartfelt birthday note for husband
According to the details, Fernandez’s attorney Mukul Rohatgi submitted the prosecution’s case that she should have been more careful while accepting gifts from her conman beau.
But Justice Datta said that the law on this aspect is the ‘Vijay Madanlal Choudhary’ judgment, upholding the constitutionality of various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
“The allegation is that, it was given to you as gifts. Nothing has been proved. At the stage of framing of charges, you have to accept what is the allegation. We appreciate that the law is such that anyone can be involved. Take it as, they were two very close friends and now if one friend gives something to the other friend, ultimately if it is found that the other person is involved in a predicate offence, very difficult. That’s why we say, Vijay Madanlal has considered this part and we are bound by that,” Justice Datta reportedly stated. “Dismissed with liberty to approach the Court.”
In her defence, Fernandez said through her lawyer, “I have nothing to do with it. This man was infatuated with me. He sent gifts to me bags etc. It is no allegation that I have helped him launder that 200cr.”
“Please keep this in view. I am not named in the predicate offence in extortion. No part of that 200cr never came to me,” she concluded.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.