In a major legal blow to Bollywood actress Jacqueliene Fernandez, a Delhi court has ordered the formal framing of criminal charges against her, conman Sukesh Chandrashekar, and 15 others in a high-profile ₹200-crore money laundering case. The landmark ruling paves the way for a full criminal trial, which is set to commence immediately following a mandatory court appearance this week.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Prashant Sharma observed that the extensive evidentiary timeline compiled by federal investigators provided a robust legal basis for a full prosecution. ASJ Prashant Sharma: “Prima facie, there is sufficient material on record based upon which a strong suspicion is raised against all the accused.”
The Court’s Directives and Statutory Liability
The court ruled that Fernandez and her co-accused are legally liable to be prosecuted for the offense of money laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which carries strict penal consequences under Section 4 of the same Act. The judge has directed all 17 accused individuals to physically present themselves in the courtroom on June 3, 2026, for the formal reading and signing of the charges.
Rejection of the “Unwitting Victim” Defense
The court explicitly rejected Fernandez’s primary legal defense strategy—that she was merely an unwitting victim of Chandrashekar’s deception and was being turned into a scapegoat.
Her legal team had previously petitioned for her discharge, arguing that because the Delhi Police had not named her as an accused in the primary scheduled extortion offense, she could not be prosecuted under anti-money laundering laws. The court dismissed this argument as entirely meritless, reinforcing the established legal precedent that an ED money laundering probe can proceed independently of the base police case.
Critical Findings Cited by the Court:
The court highlighted that Fernandez’s own recorded statements under Section 50 of the PMLA proved regular, direct communication with Chandrashekar. The ruling emphasized that the actress was well aware of Chandrashekar’s extensive prior criminal record and incarceration history. Despite this knowledge, she willfully accepted ultra-luxury articles, expensive gifts, substantial offshore financial payments for her brother, and a car for her parents, thereby attracting liability for projecting and utilizing the proceeds of crime.
