Money Laundering Case: Supreme Court Rejects Jacqueline Fernandez's Plea To Quash The Case

The Supreme Court of India has rejected the Bollywood actor Jacqueline Fernandez’s request seeking quashing of the money laundering case against her. The actor had previously sought quashing by the Delhi High Court, but the high court rejected her plea. And now, the Supreme Court has also dismissed her plea seeking the quashing. The case was booked against her for money laundering of Rs 200 crore and involves conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar. However, while rejecting the quashing plea, the Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih allowed the petitioner to approach the court at a later appropriate stage, if necessary.

The court referred to the judgment in the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs Union of India case, to consider provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The actress’s counsel, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohtagi, submitted that she was unaware of where the money came from and accepted that she should have been more cautious while accepting gifts, according to the Live Law report

When the counsel argued, referring to Section 3 of the PLMA, that the Vijay Madanlal judgment says abetment must be done “Unknowingly”, the court didn’t consider this case an ‘unknowingly’ one.

What Is Section 3 Of The PMLA, 2002?

It defines the offence of money-laundering, and reads, “Whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the [proceeds of crime, including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming] it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering.”

Quashing Request At Delhi High Court

The actor previously filed her request to quash the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and her name as the tenth accused in the matter to the Delhi High Court, saying that she had no information about it and that she is a victim.  

But the high court, in its proceedings in July this year, rejected the request, saying that ECIR cannot be quashed without the prosecution. It highlighted the need of a trial in the matter, and held, “Attribution of knowledge for the purposes of PMLA implication may potentially bring in its fold the full range, spectrum and degrees of “knowing”. For example, whether turning a blind eye to an obvious fact or disturbing news or a critical disclosure of illegality, would amount to “knowing” or not is a matter that, in this Court's opinion, can be determined post-trial, when the Court has all strands of evidence for appreciation."

Then, she approached the Supreme Court with the same request. In her plea, she said that Sukesh had access to mobile phones provided to him by the Tihar jail officials and that he had used them to con her and other artists as well. Her plea said that she has been a victim of a targeted attack and thus should be spared from the PMLA case proceeding.

The Supreme Court’s Order

Reportedly, the Supreme Court ordered, “Dismissed with liberty to approach the Court. The observations made in the impugned judgment were only for the purpose of disposing of the petition. At the time of framing of charges, the special court shall be at liberty to hear the petitioner and pass the order."

The Court dismissed the quashing request.