The Enforcement Directorate studying the high-profile money laundering case related to alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar has again summoned Bollywood actress Jacqueline Fernandez to join its investigation. She is expected to meet the agency this week, specifically on Wednesday, July 10, in the afternoon.
The ED has called Jacqueline more than once about this case. Sukesh Chandrashekhar, currently in Delhi’s Mandoli jail for a Rs 200 crore extortion case, was earlier linked to the actress. However, Jacqueline has often claimed that she has never had anything more than a professional association with Sukesh.
In February this year, Jacqueline claimed that Sukesh was using the media to tarnish her image. She also accused him of harassing her and had previously sought the same court to help her report the alleged conman. However, the actress withdrew the plea later on.
The ED, in its response to Jacqueline’s prayer to quash an FIR filed against her, has stated that the actress was ‘complicit’ in possession and use of the proceeds of crime made to Sukes Chandrashekhar. The agency has also stated that Jacqueline has not come clean about the mechanisms of her business dealings with Chandrasekhar and has dishonestly hidden facts until they were brought to her attention.
Also, the ED has claimed that Jacqueline “deleted all the data from her mobile phone after the arrest of Chandrasekhar and thus attempted to tamper with the evidence. ” The agency has also said that the actress asked her colleagues to delete the evidence.
The ED’s reply says that the evidence ‘supports the inviolable proposition that she was enjoying, using, and in possession of proceeds of crime. ’ The agency has consistently said during the investigation that while Jacqueline initially flagged being a victim of Chandrasekhar’s actions, they could never find proof of her being a victim during any of the raids.
While the case has remained in the spotlight and the middle of debates, the Enforcement Directorate’s summons to issue a notice to Jacqueline Fernandez again reasserts the murkiness and subsequent persistence of this money laundering case.
