Bollywood actress Jacqueline Fernandez's counsel has claimed in the Delhi High Court that she was unaware of the illicit origin of gifts she received, which are allegedly part of a Rs 200 crore money laundering case involving conman Sukesh Chandrashekar. The HC, on Wednesday (November 13), heard part of the arguments on behalf of Jacqueline. She has challenged the charge sheet filed against her in the Rs 200 crore money laundering case.

It was submitted that she was not involved in the offence of money laundering. She was unaware that the gifts she received were part of the alleged proceeds of crime.

Justice Anish Dayal during the hearing raised a query, "Whether there is a duty upon an adult person to know the source of gift one receives." The matter is listed on November 26 for further arguments.

Senior advocate Siddharth Agrawal along with Prashant Patil and Shakti Pandey appeared for Jacqueline. He argued that she did not know that the gifts she received were part of the proceeds of crime. She was not aware that the gifts she received from Sukesh Chandrasekar were bought out of money allegedly extorted from Aditi Singh.

"It is also not the case of ED that she was aware that gifts she received were part of proceeds of crime," senior counsel argued. He submitted that there was an omission on her part, but it was not an illegal omission. Therefore not actionable in law.

ED has alleged that Jacqueline did not verify the newspaper article about Sukesh. She received gifts from Sukesh.

It was submitted that Jacqueline came across the newspaper article in February 2019. But the article is not evidence.

She was convinced by the co-accused Pinky Irani that Sukesh had high political connections and was a political fixer. He received calls from the Home Ministry office. He was made a scapegoat for his political connections, senior advocate submitted.

It was also submitted that after coming across the newspaper article, Jacqueline had stopped communication with Sukesh. However, she was not aware that the gifts received were part of the proceeds of the crime. She was not involved in the money laundering.

(Except for the headline, this article has not been edited by FPJ's editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed)