International
He requested the international community to intervene as Bangladesh is under attack and needs global attention.
Digital Desk: Amid the ongoing political unrest in Bangladesh, a senior Awami League leader,
Fernandez took the gifts she was unaware of Chandrasekhar's
criminal records and that she did not facilitate money laundering…
Digital Desk: On Wednesday, the Delhi High Court listed Bollywood actor Jacqueline Fernandez’s petition against the charge sheet filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in ₹200 crore money laundering case linked to conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar, where her lawyers presented their side. Counsel of Fernandez reported that she was unaware of the illegality of the gifts she received from Chandrasekhar, who he said used proceeds of extortion of Aditi Singh, among other unlawful acts, to buy them.
During the hearing, Justice Anish Dayal raised a critical question: “There is a duty upon an adult person to know the source of gift one receives.” According to Fernandez’s senior counsel, Siddharth Agrawal, Prashant Patil, and Shakti Pandey, there was no reason for Fernandez to believe that the gifts were connected with illegal operations. They argued that during the time Fernandez took the gifts she was unaware of Chandrasekhar's criminal records and that she did not facilitate money laundering.
Agrawal said that Fernandez read a newspaper article in February 2019 regarding Chandrasekhar being into crime, and after reading that, she ended all communications with him. However, counsel for her submitted that this article was not evidence and that the ED never claimed that she knew the gifts were proceeds of a crime. He pointed out that any failure by Fernandez to do so results from oversight and not from breaking the law; he noted that failure alone cannot be enough to prove culpable conduct.
On October 28, the court fixed the case for further submissions on November 26, where Fernandez, through her lawyers, vehemently denied any involvement in money laundering, pointing out that she had no direct information about criminal collusion in the provision of the gifts. Her defense means she has not been aware of profits from crime, and the case is a legal issue of lack of knowledge that gives the ability to benefit from ensuing criminal activities in the form of presents.
Leave A Comment