'Jacqueline Fernandez destroyed evidence, enjoyed financial gains in Sukesh Chandrasekhar's case,' says ED

Even though Bollywood actress Jacqueline Fernandez continues to deny dating alleged conman Suresh Chandrasekhar, her name continues to be dragged in connection to the Rs 200 crore extortion case involving Chandrasekhar and his wife-actor Leena Maria Paul.

Over the past few months, a lot of developments have been reported including Jacqueline being summoned by the Enforcement Directorate multiple times in connection to the case. In a recent development, the ED has now stated that the Kick actress was “knowingly in the possession and use of proceeds of crime” of the alleged conman.

In its contention made before the Delhi High Court, the ED’s statement came in response to Jacqueline Fernandez’s recent plea seeking dismissal of the FIR against her in the money laundering case.

The matter was listed before Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, following which the counsel representing the actress sought time to file a rejoinder in response to the ED affidavit. Further, the case has been listed for a future hearing on 15 April 2024.

Jacqueline Fernandez ‘knowingly’ concealed facts and ‘enjoyed’ financial gains: ED

In line with the plea filed by Fernandes, ED has claimed that the actress never revealed the truth and instead concealed facts, until confronted with evidence.

“She continues to hold back the truth even till date. It is also a fact that Fernandez wiped out the entire data from her mobile phone after the arrest of Chandrasekhar, thereby tampering with the evidence. She also asked her colleagues to destroy the evidence. Evidence proves beyond doubt that she had been enjoying, using and is in possession of proceeds of crime. Thus, it is proved that Fernandez was knowingly involved in the possession and use of proceeds of crime of accused Chandrasekhar,” the affidavit reads as quoted by a News18 report.

The agency also stated that Jacqueline in her initial statements tried to cover up her conduct by making herself a victim, however failed to provide me substantial material to establish the same. It said that she was aware of Chandrashekhar’s criminal antecedents and still continues to enjoy and possess proceeds of crime for herself and even her family.