As per a report in ANI, the Enforcement Directorate replied to the plea, stating the investigation carried out by them under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) 2002 is different and distinct from the police's investigation, which is for the commission of scheduled offences. 

PTI reported that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has told the Delhi High Court that Jacqueline Fernandez was knowingly involved in the possession and use of proceeds of crime of alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar.

ED, in its reply claimed that Jacqueline "held back the truth till date" regarding the financial transactions with Sukesh and concealed the facts until confronted with evidence.

The apex probe agency further stated, "She (Jacqueline) continues to hold back the truth even till date. It is also a fact that Fernandez wiped out the entire data from her mobile phone after the arrest of Sukesh Chandrasekhar, thereby tampering with the evidence. She also asked her colleagues to destroy the evidence. Evidence proves beyond doubt that she had been enjoying, using and is in possession of the proceeds of crime''.

''Thus, it is proved that Fernandez was knowingly involved in the possession and use of proceeds of crime of accused Chandrasekhar," ED claimed.

ED also said that the actress was not able to present any substantial evidence to establish her claim that she is a victim of the conman. It stated that she was aware of his criminal intentions yet she continued to receive, enjoy and possess proceeds of crime for herself and her family members.

According to the ED, despite knowing of his criminal antecedents and knowing that he has a wife, Jacqueline continued to have a relationship with Sukesh and received financial help from him.

In her plea, Jacqueline stated that evidence filed by the ED would prove that the petitioner is an innocent victim of Sukesh's maliciously targeted attack. There is nothing that indicates her involvement whatsoever in aiding him to launder his purportedly ill-gotten wealth and she can't be prosecuted for the offences under Sections 3. and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.