Jacqueline Fernandez asks Delhi Court to let Her turn approver in Rs.200 Crore fraud case

A Delhi Court has issued notice to the Enforcement Directorate on a plea by Bollywood actor Jacqueline Fernandez seeking approval to turn approver, effectively flipping sides from accused to state witness, in the high-profile Rs.200 crore money laundering case linked to alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar. Additional Sessions Judge Prashant Sharma of the Patiala House Court issued the notice and scheduled the next hearing for April 20, setting the stage for a move that could significantly reshape the prosecution's case if granted.

The case traces back to Sukesh Chandrashekhar's alleged scheme of impersonating senior government functionaries, including officials purportedly acting on behalf of the PMO and the Home Minister, to defraud businesswoman Aditi Singh of nearly Rs.200 crores over seven to eight months. Fernandez entered the picture through allegations that she received expensive gifts funded by the proceeds of this fraud. Originally absent from the first prosecution complaint filed against eight accused in December 2021, she was arraigned as an accused in a second supplementary complaint in August 2022.

Her subsequent attempt to have the case against her quashed was rejected by the Delhi High Court in July 2024. Now pivoting her legal strategy, Fernandez argues she was herself a victim, deceived through the same spoofing tactic Chandrashekhar used against Singh, with a spoof call impersonating a senior government official placed to her makeup artist Shaan, and that she received the gifts in complete ignorance of their tainted origins, positioning herself as a witness rather than a beneficiary in the predicate Delhi Police offence.

ASJ Prashant Sharma, on examining Fernandez's approver plea, found it sufficient to warrant the ED's response before any decision is taken, a procedural but significant step signalling the court's willingness to formally consider the application on merits. The core of Fernandez's legal argument rests on her contention that "she did not knowingly receive any gifts and that she is a witness in the predicate offence", a distinction that, if accepted, would fundamentally alter her standing in the trial.

Her counsel underscored that she had voluntarily cooperated with investigators, appearing before the ED on five separate occasions and recording statements under Section 50 of the PMLA. The court issued notice to the ED and listed the matter for April 20 for further proceedings.