A Delhi court on Saturday ordered framed money laundering charges against alleged fraudster Sukesh Chandrashekar and 16 others, including Bollywood actress Jacqueline Fernandez, in a case. $200 crore extortion case
Special Judge Prashant Sharma of the Patiala House Court also ordered fabrication of charges under Section 3 (organized crime) and 4 (possession of unaccountable wealth on behalf of organized crime syndicate) of MCOCA (Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act) against Chandrashekar and 21 others in the case filed by the Delhi Police Crime Branch.
The court summoned all the defendants – 40 in total in both cases – on June 3 to formally press charges.
In the ED case, the court in its order concluded that there was sufficient prima facie material on record, raising strong doubts that Chandrashekar committed an offense under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which is punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA.
The court highlighted 36 crucial pieces of evidence against Chandrashekar, including testimonies, call detail records and conversations recovered from the phones of the complainant and the accused, stating that it “points to the generation of proceeds of crime to the tune of $215 crores from Aditi Singh and the modus operandi of money laundering.” The court also held that prima facie doubt is equally derived from the evidence on record against Jacqueline Fernandez.
The judge noted that her statement under Section 50 of the Narcotics Control Act referred to the fact that she “admitted to contacting Sukesh and receiving a gift and money from him.”
The court described the first argument as “baseless”, noting that it is a well-established legal proposition that a person can be charged under the Anti-Money Laundering Law even if he is not accused of the prescribed crime. After taking cognizance of the gifts arising from the proceeds of crime, the court stated that the said dispute should be decided during the trial.
In the Delhi Police case, the court, through a separate order, noted that there was prima facie suspicion of commission of offenses under the Anti-Corruption Act on account of the confessions of Chandrasekar and other co-accused, which was admissible under Section 18 of the Act.
The court also held that Chandrasekar’s previous record of criminal cases indicated that he was “involved in ongoing illegal activity”.
The court also highlighted the 161 CRPC statement of complainant Aditi Singh, which the court said revealed that Sukesh blackmailed more than $Of which 200 crores by portraying himself as a senior government official and carrying out illegal activities in conspiracy with the co-accused.
The ED case, based on the Delhi Police MCOCA FIR from August 2021, alleges that Chandrashekar and his associates blackmailed $200 crores between 2020 and 2021 from complainant Aditi Singh, wife of former Ranbaxy promoter Shivinder Singh, with Chandrashekar posing as a senior central government official to arrange her husband’s release on bail.
In 2021, the federal agency alleged in its indictment that racketeering funds were laundered through a network of shell companies and transactions, with a portion of the funds allegedly being used to purchase luxury gifts and assets.
The charge sheet named eight people, including Chandrasekhar as the main accused and the intermediary Pinky Irani, through whom Chandrasekhar communicated with actress Jacqueline Fernandez. The total number of defendants now stands at 16, after eight more names were added to the supplementary indictment.
ED named Fernandez as a defendant in a supplemental prosecution complaint dated August 17, 2022, in which she is accused of possessing the proceeds of crime in the form of various gift items worth more than that. $7 Crores.
Jacqueline’s lawyers have consistently maintained that she was not aware of the criminal activities undertaken by Chandrashekar and therefore there was no criminal intent.
The CEO had earlier this month opposed Fernandez’s request to become an approving authority in the money laundering case, stating that she had actively benefited from the proceeds of crime and was now trying to evade prosecution.
The federal agency alleged in its indictment that the racketeering funds were laundered through a network of shell companies and transactions, with a portion of the funds allegedly being used to purchase luxury gifts.
A Delhi court had in April granted bail to Chandrasekhar in another Enforcement Directorate case linked to AIADMK election symbol “dual leaves”, after observing that he had already served more than half of the maximum seven-year sentence stipulated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Of the total 31 cases against him, Chandrashekhar has so far been granted bail in 27 cases; The remaining cases include the current racketeering case and the resulting money laundering investigation.
