A Delhi court on Saturday ordered framing of money laundering charges against alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekar and 16 others, including Bollywood actress Jacqueline Fernandez, in a ₹200 crore extortion case.Charges to be framed against Sukesh, JacquelineSpecial judge Prashant Sharma of the Patiala House court also ordered framing of charges under section 3 (organised crime) and 4 (possessing unaccountable wealth on behalf of organised crime syndicate) of MCOCA (Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act) against Chandrashekar and 21 others in the case lodged by the Delhi Police Crime Branch.The court has summoned all the accused — 40 in total in both cases — on June 3 for formal framing of charges.In the ED case, the court concluded in its order that there is prima facie sufficient material on record, raising strong suspicion that Chandrashekar committed offence under section 3 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which is punishable under section 4 of PMLA.The court highlighted 36 pieces of crucial evidence against Chandrashekar, including testimonies, call detail records and chats recovered from phones of the complainant and the accused, to state that it “indicated the generation of proceeds of crime to the tune of ₹215 crores from Aditi Singh and the modus operandi of laundering the money”. The court further held that an equal prima facie suspicion is drawn from the evidence on record against Jacqueline Fernandez.The judge noted that her own statements under section 50 of PMLA indicated the fact that “she admitted contact with Sukesh and receiving of gift and money from him”.The court termed the first argument as “meritless”, stating that it was a settled legal proposition that a person can be made an accused under PMLA even if he or she is not an accused in the scheduled offence. On her being aware of the gifts arising out of proceeds of crime, the court stated that the said contention has to be decided during the trial.In the Delhi Police’s case, the court through a separate order noted that there was prima facie suspicion of commission of offences under MCOCA due to confessional statements of Chandrasekar and other co-accused persons, which is admissible under section 18 of the Act.The court further held that Chandrasekar’s previous record of criminal cases indicated that “he is involved in continuous unlawful activity”.The court also highlighted the 161 CrPC statement of complainant Aditi Singh, which court said revealed that Sukesh extorted more than ₹200 crores from her by projecting himself as a senior government officer and carried out illegal activities in conspiracy with the co-accused persons.The ED’s case, based on the Delhi Police MCOCA FIR from August 2021, alleges that Chandrashekar and his associates extorted ₹200 crores between 2020 and 2021 from complainant Aditi Singh, the wife of former Ranbaxy promoter Shivender Singh, with Chandrashekar impersonating as a top central government official to arrange for her husband’s release on bail.In 2021, the federal agency in its chargesheet claimed that the extorted money was laundered through a network of shell companies and transactions with a portion of money being purportedly used to buy luxury gifts and assets.The chargesheet named eight persons, including Chandrashekhar as the prime accused and intermediary Pinky Irani, through whom Chandrasekhar got in touch with the actress Jacqueline Fernandez. The total number of accused now stands at 16, after adding eight more names in the supplementary chargesheet.ED named Fernandez as an accused in its supplementary prosecution complaint of August 17, 2022, in which she was accused of being in possession of proceeds of crime in the form of various gifted articles, worth over ₹7 crore.Jacqueline’s counsels have consistently maintained that she was not aware of the criminal activities of Chandrashekhar and hence there was absence of any criminal intent.The ED had earlier this month opposed Fernandez’s plea to turn approver in the money laundering case, stating that she had actively benefited from the proceeds of crime and was now attempting to escape prosecution.The federal agency in its chargesheet, claimed that the extorted money was laundered through a network of shell companies and transactions with a portion of money being purportedly used to buy luxury gifts.A Delhi court had in April granted bail to Chandrasekhar in another Enforcement Directorate case linked to the AIADMK “two leaves” election symbol, after observing that he had already spent over half of the maximum seven-year sentence prescribed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).Of a total of 31 cases against him, Chandrashekhar has so far secured bail in 27 cases; the remaining cases include the present extortion case and the money laundering probe arising out of it.