New Delhi: Jacqueline Fernandez is part of the Enforcement Directorate’s ongoing investigation of the Rs 200 crore extortion case involving multi-millionaire conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar. Recently, Enforcement Directorate has opposed Jacqueline's bail plea and claimed that the actress had deleted evidence from her cell phone, and also tried to leave the country. 


There were also reports that Sukesh Chandrasekhar wrote a letter to his lawyer claiming that Jacqueline Fernandez had no involvement in the scam. Now in a conversation with Times of India, Jacqueline’s lawyer Prashant Patil spoke about the letter and maintained the actor was innocent and will continue to ‘fight for her dignity’. 


"If it is written by Sukesh Chandrasekhar, then the allegations made by him need to be seriously investigated, independently and fairly by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The contents reveal that the investigation needs to take place on the facts revealed by him. His statement can be recorded under relevant provisions of the law and investigation can be carried out to find out the truth,” Prashant Patil told ETimes. 


"The purpose of any investigation is to find out the truth. If certain facts are revealed by the accused, even that needs to be investigated by the agencies fairly. I repeat, that my client is innocent and she shall fight for her dignity by following the due process of law," Prashant added. 


Sukesh had written in the letter, “It's very, very unfortunate that Jacqueline has been made an accused in the PMLA (money laundering) case… We were in a relationship and if I have given her and her family gifts, what is their fault… She never asked me for anything except loving her and standing by her...” 


On October 22, Delhi's Patiala House Court had extended actor Jacqueline Fernandez’s interim bail till 10th November 


On August 17, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had filed its second supplementary charge sheet in the case naming her as an accused.   


Jacqueline and another Bollywood actress Nora Fatehi, both had already recorded their statements as witnesses in the case.