Court reserves order on Jacqueline Fernandez's plea challenging money laundering case
The bench of Justice Anish Dayal reserved its decision after hearing extensively from both sides. Senior Advocate Sidharth Aggarwal represented Jacqueline, while Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain appeared on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
During arguments, Aggarwal contended that if the ED claims that money was distributed among 15 individuals, then by that logic, everyone involved—whether a grocery vendor, court officials, or lawyers—could be deemed guilty of money laundering. He questioned the premise that any financial transaction involving a criminal automatically constitutes money laundering, suggesting that such an interpretation would create undue fear.
Aggarwal further argued that the ED's case hinges on Jacqueline's awareness of Sukesh Chandrashekhar's criminal background, as reported in a 2021 newspaper article. He asserted that merely being a celebrity does not imply prior knowledge of tainted funds. "Businessmen often have multiple cases against them," he stated, adding that Jacqueline was introduced to Sukesh as a business tycoon. "Today, I am paying the price of being a celebrity," Aggarwal concluded.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) argued that its investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, is separate and distinct from police investigations into scheduled offences. It emphasised that individuals accused of money laundering may differ from those charged in the predicate offence, given the distinct nature of the crime.
Previously, ED had opposed Jacqueline's plea, submitting that she continued to receive Sukesh's gifts despite being aware of his criminal antecedents. Perjury to quash the case in an attempt to stall proceedings.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal and Advocate Prashant Patil for Jacqueline had submitted that being in the public eye and being labelled as a money launderer is problematic. My prayer is not to quash the complaint completely, it's only qua the present applicant (Jacqueline). Sukesh is sitting in jail and carrying out extortion and fraud from there. EOW comes to me, records my statement, and finds that what I have to say is relevant to their investigation. ED has filed four complaints, but the investigation is still going on, and the trial cannot start, said Sr Adv Siddharth Aggarwal.
Jacqueline has filed a petition seeking the quashing of the ECIR (equivalent to an FIR) and the supplementary chargesheet filed by the ED in connection with the ₹200 crore money laundering case.
Jacqueline, through a plea, stated that the evidence filed by the Directorate of Enforcement would prove that the Petitioner is an innocent victim of Sukesh Chandrashekhar's maliciously targeted attack. There is no indication that she had any involvement whatsoever in aiding him to launder his purportedly ill-got wealth. Hence, she cannot be prosecuted for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Deccan Herald
4 hours ago
- Deccan Herald
Insolvency law cannot override PMLA, says NCLAT; upholds asset attachment by ED
The appellate tribunal held that if there is any attachment by ED under the PMLA, which is "validly made and confirmed, it cannot be undone under IBC (Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code).
Indian Express
5 hours ago
- Indian Express
ED attaches actor Ranya Rao's assets in gold smuggling case: What to know
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) attached assets worth over Rs 34 crore linked to Kannada actor Ranya Rao in a gold smuggling-related money laundering case. On Friday (July 4), the central agency said that false customs declarations were filed in Dubai — where Rao had a travel history — declaring the destination of gold shipments as Switzerland or the US, but in fact, it was for India. 'The attachments have been made in terms of Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act as property equivalent in value to the untraced proceeds of crime identified during the course of investigation,' the ED said. On March 3, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) arrested Rao at the Bengaluru airport on her arrival from Dubai and recovered 14.2 kg of gold bars valued at more than Rs 12.56 crore from her possession. On March 9, the DRI arrested Telugu actor Tarun Konduru, Rao's accomplice. The ED said, 'Ranya Rao, in active collusion with Tarun Konduru Raju and others, orchestrated a well-structured operation for smuggling gold into India. Gold was procured from suppliers based in Dubai, Uganda, and other jurisdictions, and payments were made through hawala channels in cash, thereby circumventing legal financial systems.' The probe revealed that the smuggled gold was then sold in India to jewellers and other local entities, and the proceeds were laundered through hawala remittances abroad to finance repeat smuggling consignments. Here is what to know. In early March, DRI officials called it 'one of the biggest seizures of gold at Bengaluru airport in recent times.' The DRI was investigating whether the incident was an isolated incident or a part of a series of gold-smuggling trips, noting that Rao, 33, travelled to Dubai 27 times over the previous six months. The case also raised questions on possible police involvement, as local officers would escort Rao home from the airport after she returned from her frequent trips to Dubai. Rao is also the stepdaughter of the senior Karnataka IPS officer K Ramachandra Rao. She is alleged to have used airport protocol services available to her father to escape customs checks and detection at the Bengaluru airport on arrival from Dubai. Earlier this month, the Income Tax (I-T) department said it would investigate Rao's wealth. Until its repeal in 1990, the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, curbed gold imports and heavily restricted the acquisition, possession, and disposal of gold in India. However, with economic liberalisation in the 1990s, the government modified its approach, imposing an import duty on gold at the rate of Rs 250 for every 10 grams, leading to a boom in gold imports in the following years. Gold imports are largely governed by the Customs Act, 1962, and by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC). The customs duty for gold may differ depending on the amount of gold carried by a passenger and the duration spent abroad before travelling back to India, as per the Baggage Rules, 2016 (issued under the Customs Act). Under these rules, a man residing abroad for over a year may carry up to 20 grams of jewellery duty-free (with a value cap of Rs 50,000), and a woman may similarly carry up to 40 grams (with a cap of Rs 1 lakh). The CBIC also has specific guidelines for Indian passengers returning from Dubai after residing there for over six months, allowing them to carry up to 1 kg of gold as long as the applicable customs duty is paid. The customs duty for gold is: 3% customs duty: for men carrying 20-50 grams of gold and women carrying 40-100 grams; 6% customs duty: for men carrying 50-100 grams and women carrying 100-200 grams; 10% customs duty: For men carrying over 100 grams and women carrying over 200 grams. In 2003, the Supreme Court held that any article imported without complying with the relevant conditions or restrictions must be considered a 'prohibited good'. Such goods are liable to be confiscated under Section 111 and punished under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The punishment may include a fine of up to the value of the goods. Section 135 provides a punishment of up to 7 years imprisonment if the market price of the smuggled goods exceeds Rs. 1 lakh. Smuggling is also punishable under Section 111 (Organised Crime) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which punishes 'trafficking in…illicit goods' with imprisonment of at least five years, extendable to life imprisonment. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) also carries the same punishment for smuggling as a 'terrorist act' under Section 15 if it causes 'damage to the monetary stability of India'. This is an updated version of an explainer published earlier this year.
Mint
6 hours ago
- Mint
Insolvency law cannot override PMLA, says NCLAT; upholds asset attachment by ED
New Delhi, Jul 6 (PTI) Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code cannot override the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), said appellate tribunal NCLAT, adding assets of an debt-ridden firm once attached by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) and confirmed by competent authority cannot be released for its resolution. Under section 14 of IBC, a moratorium is applied on those assets for the purpose of resolution. However, if the property is alleged to be "proceeds of crime" and is already under adjudication by competent authority under a penal statute, such property cannot be deemed to be part of the freely available resolution estate, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) said. The appellate tribunal held that if there is any attachment by ED under the PMLA, which is "validly made and confirmed, it cannot be undone under IBC (Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code). Citing section 238 of IBC, which has an overriding effect over other laws, a three-member NCLAT bench said it "cannot override the PMLA in respect of proceedings involving proceeds of crime." PMLA and IBC operate in distinct spheres and there is no "irreconcilable inconsistency" exists between the two, said NCLAT adding ED does not act as a creditor, but as a public enforcement agency. "The attached assets are not to satisfy creditors, but to uphold penal objectives and international obligations under FATF and UN Conventions," said the appellate tribunal, while upholding an order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). NCLAT also cited a directive issued by the Supreme Court in the Embassy Property matter, saying it "lacks jurisdiction to interfere with the PAO, which has been subsequently confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA". The appellate tribunal's 36-page-order came over a plea filed by the resolution professional of Dunar Foods, challenging an NCLT ruling, which had refused to direct the ED to release provisionally attached assets of the debt-ridden company. On December 22, 2027, the Mumbai bench of NCLT had ordered insolvency proceedings against Dunar Foods, which was engaged in processing and exporting basmati rice. The insolvency petition was filed by a consortium of banks led by public sector lender SBI for a loan repayment default of ₹ 758.73 crore. Accordingly, CIRP (corporate insolvency resolution process) was initiated against Dunar Foods with the appointment of a resolution professional. Meanwhile, the ED initiated an investigation under PMLA against PD Agroprocessors, an associate company of Dunar Foods. It traced the flow of alleged tainted funds to Dunar Foods based on scheduled offences under the Indian Penal Code and Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), alleging that large export advances received by Dunar Foods from PD Agroprocessors were proceeds of crime. ED then attached Dunar Foods' several immovable and movable assets worth ₹ 177.33 crore, prompting the resolution professional (RP) of the firm to move NCLT seeking immediate de-attachment of the provisionally attached properties. However, the NCLT on May 21, 2018 dismissed the RP's application and held that the provisional attachment order issued by the ED under PMLA did not fall within the scope of the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC. NCLT had said that PMLA is a special penal statute and has a 'distinct adjudicatory mechanism', hence unless and until the attachment was set aside by the PMLA adjudicating authority, the NCLT has no jurisdiction to direct its release. Aggrieved by this decision, Dunar Foods' RP then approached appellate tribunal NCLAT. Meanwhile, the lenders of Dunar Foods approved the resolution plan submitted by Amit Gupta in November 2019 during the pendency of the appeal in NCLAT. The appellate tribunal said though Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) was issued by ED after the commencement of CIRP, ECIR (Enforcement Case Information Report) investigation commenced as far back as 2013.
