No money trail of Sharif's London flats: Supreme Court

[Dil Pakistan]

Qatari Royal family members, including Prince Jasim, are in Lahore.

Shahbaz Shareef has left for Turkey to meet Erdogan.

Can you imagine how serious the things are for Shareefs.

 

[PakSword]

The reason the court hasn't been able to adjourned its ruling because the case is still going on which suggests there hasn't been concrete enough enough to determine the outcome of the case. By rushing the process of the court, you are asking the court to let PMLN off the hook by adjourning based on the current state of the case.

Regardless of the court's decision, PTI will never accept the decision either way.



That is called weak case, not evidence. Despite of weak substances, the court still rules in the favor of the defendant, and even in the case of embezzlement. That's why the case needs extremely strong evidence to determine the outcome of the case because it is matter of life and death or better yet, life imprisonment for the defendant. That's why the benefit of doubt always goes to the defendant despite of weak substances as long as the prosecutors fail to bring concrete evidence that cannot be deniable.




I have said about this umpteenth time already. If the case if still weak, even from the defendant side, the court will still adjourn its ruling in the favor of defendant because it is matter of life-n-death or better yet, life imprisonment for the defendant; prosecutors are recommended to bring real concrete evidence that cannot be deniable. That is same in everywhere in the whole world except Imranistan world apparently.

Precisely for the same reason why Imran Khan is not disqualified from the constitution for democratic election to the government whether it is provincial or federal. #benefit of doubt

My God... First, understand that it is not a trial... Trial hasn't started yet. So whether you say umpteenth time doesn't matter...

Also, read the remark of one judge when he used word "inquisitorial"...

 

[Mansoon]

My God... First, understand that it is not a trial... Trial hasn't started yet. So whether you say umpteenth time doesn't matter...

Also, read the remark of one judge when he used word "inquisitorial"...

Why do you even debate with these guys?

 

[PakSword]

Why do you even debate with these guys?

I have nothing to do today... Socha shayad kisi bhainsay ko been samajh aanay lagay...

 

[Finer]

My God... First, understand that it is not a trial... Trial hasn't started yet. So whether you say umpteenth time doesn't matter...

Also, read the remark of one judge when he used word "inquisitorial"...

The principal remains the same. Pay attention to the keyword. My post is pretty consistent.

An inquisitorial system is a legal system where the court or a part of the court is actively involved in investigating the facts of the case, as opposed to an adversarial system where the role of the court is primarily that of an impartial referee between the prosecution and the defense.

I have nothing to do today... Socha shayad kisi bhainsay ko been samajh aanay lagay...

That is the problem with Imranistan. Just because we don't agree, that doesn't mean we should resort to this manner. Look at me. I am being calm so far. The popular method; to you is your and to me is mine. At the end, it is just debate. Don't take it personal.

 

[Emmie]

My God... First, understand that it is not a trial... Trial hasn't started yet. So whether you say umpteenth time doesn't matter...

Also, read the remark of one judge when he used word "inquisitorial"...

Don't bother explaining established legal facts to ones who are here solely to disagree.

1. SC is not a trial court yet people view SC proceedings as trial.
2. Cases being heard are strictly civil in nature yet people resort to arguments based on criminal jurisprudence -- innocent till proven guilty, benefit of doubt and stuff along similar lines.
3. Distinction between inquisitorial and adversarial types of proceedings has been explained like dozen times yet people don't understand.

I would suggest get yourself acclimatized and move on.

 

[Finer]

Don't bother explaining established legal facts to ones who are here solely to disagree.

1. SC is not a trial court yet people view SC proceedings as trial.
2. Cases being heard are strictly civil in nature yet people resort to arguments based on criminal jurisprudence -- innocent till proven guilty, benefit of doubt and stuff along similar lines.
3. Distinction between inquisitorial and adversarial types of proceedings has been explained like dozen times yet people don't understand.

I would suggest get yourself acclimatized and move on.

I am sorry. My apology. Apparently, the world revolves around the testimony without needing concrete evidence. I know it is not trial, but rather proceeding, in other word, theatrical court which is based on the adversarial types of proceeding rather than inquisitorial proceeding. Inquisitorial court system? That doesn't exist in real world regardless whether it is theoretically implemented for the trial or just court proceeding aka theatrical court.

My apology. Now i understand why Blasphemy law is strongly supported in Pakistan because it is based on the adversarial court system. Just the way people want and support in Pakistan and the process for that matter. What do i know about real court system? So silly me of me thinking the world resolves around 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Why not accuse me and then ask me to prove myself innocent for the allegation against me? It is gonna picnic for the court and lawyers if every civilians practice 'guilty until proven innocent'.

P.S: This is sarcasm post just in case if people didn't get the gist of my post. I cannot believe i have to clarify after huge misunderstanding debacle recently.

 

[mr.robot]

I am sorry. My apology. Apparently, the world revolves around the testimony without needing concrete evidence. I know it is not trial, but rather proceeding, in other word, theatrical court which is based on the adversarial types of proceeding rather than inquisitorial proceeding. Inquisitorial court system? That doesn't exist in real world regardless whether it is theoretically implemented for the trial or just court proceeding aka theatrical court.

My apology. Now i understand why Blasphemy law is strongly supported in Pakistan because it is based on the adversarial court system. Just the way people want and support in Pakistan and the process for that matter. What do i know about real court system? So silly me of me thinking the world resolves around 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Why not accuse me and then ask me to prove myself innocent for the allegation against me? It is gonna picnic for the court and lawyers if every civilians practice 'guilty until proven innocent'.

They are being considered guilty until proven innocent, not on the base of accusation, but after they accepted the accusation that they own the property and it was never declared by parents or children of Nawaz Sharif in Pakistan. A clear case of tax evasion and probably money laundering. SC won't even have to take it up if NAB/F.B.R would have acted as per law. Don't blame the law of Pakistan because you are a citizen in United States of Sharifstan and Qatarstan.

I am not lawyer but some searching on Google tells that in case of tax avoidance and fraud, many other countries also use guilty until proven innocent concept.

Here is example of Austrailia.

Recent changes to tax law see a heavier onus on tax payers to prove their innocence in tax evasion claims.

https://lawpath.com.au/blog/taxpayer-guilty-until-proven-innocent

This one is probably related to U.K

The presumption that someone is innocent until proven guilty is a legal right in most countries. Where tax is concerned, the opposite seems to hold true and any taxpayer unlucky enough to be named in the Mossack Fonseca leak is likely to now find themselves having to prove their innocence.

http://blogs.mazars.com/letstalktax/2016/05/the-panama-papers-database-guilty-until-proven-innocent/
http://realbusiness.co.uk/accounts-...hy-would-you-use-a-trust-or-offshore-company/

 

[Finer]

They are being considered guilty until proven innocent, not on the base of accusation, but after they accepted the accusation that they own the property and it was never declared by parents or children of Nawaz Sharif in Pakistan. A clear case of tax evasion and probably money laundering. SC won't even have to take it up if NAB/F.B.R would have acted as per law. Don't blame the law of Pakistan because you are a citizen in United States of Sharifstan and Qatarstan.

I am not lawyer but some searching on Google tells that in case of tax avoidance and fraud, many other countries also use guilty until proven innocent concept.

Here is example of Austrailia.

https://lawpath.com.au/blog/taxpayer-guilty-until-proven-innocent

This one is probably related to U.K

http://blogs.mazars.com/letstalktax/2016/05/the-panama-papers-database-guilty-until-proven-innocent/
http://realbusiness.co.uk/accounts-...hy-would-you-use-a-trust-or-offshore-company/

Except Nawaz Sharif has no money on his account. Everything he allegedly had transferred to his children allegedly. I had to use the word allegedly twice because they are not proven yet. Despite of narratives that took place, all those contradictions make the case weaker if anything. That doesn't reveal anything. That's why the case is still going on.

No money, no tax. Even today, his whole case is riding on the whimsical stance like charity from Qatar,...etc. Despite of some contradiction in their parts, even then they are pretty consistent from no money to charity. Nawaz Sharif literally has no money in his account, hence he cannot be held liability.

If they were really guilty by the account of the evidence or better yet, as you said, the court would have announced the decision by now. The fact that the court is taking so long suggests there is nothing concrete evidence that is holding on the court. At the same time that buys more time for the prosecutors to build the case stronger if certain discovery of evidence is found in the last minute.

That's why i am not hopeful from this case. I have witnessed many allegedly criminals manipulated the case to escape unscathed. Big fan of lawyering stuffs. I have always found that fascinating. It is like finding a way to get around the system and get through unscathed.

 

[Emmie]

I am sorry. My apology. Apparently, the world revolves around the testimony without needing concrete evidence. I know it is not trial, but rather proceeding, in other word, theatrical court which is based on the adversarial types of proceeding rather than inquisitorial proceeding. Inquisitorial court system? That doesn't exist in real world regardless whether it is theoretically implemented for the trial or just court proceeding aka theatrical court.

My apology. Now i understand why Blasphemy law is strongly supported in Pakistan because it is based on the adversarial court system. Just the way people want and support in Pakistan and the process for that matter. What do i know about real court system? So silly me of me thinking the world resolves around 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Why not accuse me and then ask me to prove myself innocent for the allegation against me? It is gonna picnic for the court and lawyers if every civilians practice 'guilty until proven innocent'.

What? Which world do you live in my dear friend? The world revolves around two legal systems Civil law and Common law. Roughly 150 countries that have what can be described as primarily civil law system have courts which function under inquisitorial system. And you think inquisitorial system does not exist at all!

You seem to have some special affection for Blasphemy laws, don't you? Every 4th post of yours irrelevantly has a relevance to Blasphemy laws for some unknown reasons. What is in common between Blasphemy laws and the petitions being discussed here? As for adversarial system, Pakistan being one of the followers of Common law system has adversarial system in place. Now what is your point?

Toward "innocent till proven guilty" please recall a post/reply of mine which detailed the dogma, I won't repeat it again.

The fact that the court is taking so long suggests there is nothing concrete evidence that is holding on the court. At the same time that buys more time for the prosecutors to build the case stronger if certain discovery of evidence is found in the last minute

That pretty much explain how update you're on the matter. There's a phrase " due course of law" I am sure you're familiar with it. The court is taking long because many of the parties are yet to present arguments, counsel for IK hasn't finished yet let alone all the petitioners and respondents. The court hears everyone before passing judgement, don't you think it's good?

 

[Finer]

What? Which world do you live in my dear friend? The world revolves around two legal systems Civil law and Common law. Roughly 150 countries that have what can be described as primarily civil law system have courts which function under inquisitorial system. And you think inquisitorial system does not exist at all!

It appears you haven't read my post at all. I even highlighted the keyword that describes the process of Inquisitorial court system. Do you understand the definition of facts? Facts, in other word, undeniable proof.

An inquisitorial system is a legal system where the court or a part of the court is actively involved in investigating the facts of the case, as opposed to an adversarial system where the role of the court is primarily that of an impartial referee between the prosecution and the defense.


I know you are Moderator, and i respect you for that, but please, read the posts carefully.

You seem to have some special affection for Blasphemy laws, don't you? Every 4th post of yours irrelevantly has a relevance to Blasphemy laws for some unknown reasons. What is in common between Blasphemy laws and the petitions being discussed here? As for adversarial system, Pakistan being one of the followers of Common law system has adversarial system in place. Now what is your point?

What is this happening? You guys were justifying the process what is actually based on Blasphemy law. Guilty until proven innocent. By that stance, you also support blasphemy law indirectly.

You think that your process defines Inquisitorial court system, but in reality, you are supporting adversarial court system. Hence the example of blasphemy law that is right up to your angle.

By indirectly you are supporting adversarial court system over Inquisitorial court system. You just don't know it, but your process is screaming 'adversarial court system' all over place. Anyone who is reading our debate would attest to that.

Did you even read my posts before you jumped on my posts quickly?

The rest of post seems like misplaced rant based on the misunderstanding on your side in the first place.

P.S: Another word for Inquisitorial court system is 'Innocent until proven guilty'.

That pretty much explain how update you're on the matter. There's a phrase " due course of law" I am sure you're familiar with it. The court is taking long because many of the parties are yet to present arguments, counsel for IK hasn't finished yet let alone all the petitioners and respondents. The court hears everyone before passing judgement, don't you think it's good?

You do know if in some cases where the court was able to adjourn its ruling quickly because of undeniable proof that made the case crystal clear? As long as the court is still going on which suggests that the court has not been presented with concrete evidence to be able to adjourn its ruling with confidence.

 

[The Eagle]

The court hears everyone before passing judgement, don't you think it's good

The diary mentions a bit like this

..... Counsel for the parties partly argued the matter. In the interest of justice, case is adjourned to..(date).... for further arguments/Proceedings.

 

[Emmie]

It appears you haven't read my post at all. I even highlighted the keyword that describes the process of Inquisitorial court system. Do you understand the definition of facts? Facts, in other word, undeniable proof.

An inquisitorial system is a legal system where the court or a part of the court is actively involved in investigating the facts of the case, as opposed to an adversarial system where the role of the court is primarily that of an impartial referee between the prosecution and the defense.


I know you are Moderator, and i respect you for that, but please, read the posts carefully.

Chalo jee, what exactly did you highlight in the post which I was supposed to quote? How did you come to conclusion that I didn't read your post? I am a mod, so what? Have I disrespected you or have I misused the authority I am vested with?

Facts means undeniable proofs! Oh please don't interpret the law, leave it to judges. I haven't disputed the term so why am I being referred to it? Here http://thelawdictionary.org/fact/ , go through the link and educate yourself. Anyway, beauty of inquisitorial system -- judges have no limit in their power to establish facts.

At least you backed out your earlier stance that inquisitorial system doesn't exist at all.

What is this happening? You guys were justifying the process what is actually based on Blasphemy law. Guilty until proven innocent. By that stance, you also support blasphemy law indirectly.

Are you for real? Dude understand the difference between criminal proceedings and civil proceedings. To try anyone under any law you need to first indict the accused formally. Where is the indictment in case of your favorite NS and his progeny. Don't give this poppycock again and over again.

You think that your process defines Inquisitorial court system, but in reality, you are supporting advesarial court system. Hence the example of blasphemy law that is right up to your angle.

By indirectly you are supporting adversarial court system over Inquisitorial court system. You just don't know it, but your process is screaming 'adversarial court system' all over place. Anyone who is reading our debate would attest to that.

You don't have basic knowledge of Pakistan judicial system, in fact you don't know what law is all about whether it's law in Pakistani or law in any other country. There was a reason why I made a reference to two judicial system the world replies upon but you're too hypermetropic to even read let alone comprehend. Countries that follow civil law have predominant inquisitorial system and countries that follow common law have predominant adversarial system. Pakistan follow latter judicial law therefore it has a predominant adversarial system. That said whether I scream or not we have an adversarial system in place, period.

I never said we follow inquisitorial court system, find me where did I say that? Except proceedings under article 184(3) the courts, I repeat the courts, don't follow inquisitorial system of proceedings. Only SC can invoke 184(3) and initiate inquisitorial proceedings when matter is about public importance.

Did you even read my posts before you jumped on my posts quickly?

Says the one whose only one post was quoted.

The rest of post seems like misplaced rant based on the misunderstanding on your side in the first place.

Which part of my post did you leave unanswered? There was nothing left to be called as rest.

P.S: Another word for Inquisitorial court system is 'Innocent until proven guilty'.

What can i say!

You do know if in some cases where the court was able to adjourn its ruling quickly because of undeniable proof that made the case crystal clear? As long as the court is still going on which suggests that the court has not been presented with concrete evidence to be able to adjourn its ruling with confidence.

Don't clutch at straws to boost your bruised ego. Why court is still going on, the reason has been presented already.

Please don't reply if you have rhetorics and shenanigans to show. In fact you don't reply at all.

 

[Finer]

@Emmie

You say one thing but practice the other. How can you say you support the method of Inquisitorial court system while your action suggests otherwise.

Let me repeat;

An inquisitorial system is a legal system where the court or a part of the court is actively involved in investigating the facts of the case, as opposed to an adversarial system where the role of the court is primarily that of an impartial referee between the prosecution and the defense.

Pay attention to the key 'facts'. Facts means undeniable proof. Whereas your posts lean towards anything but the fact.

Definition of facts just in case if you still don't understand despite your lengthy post that avails nothing to back your opinion.

That is the official definition of 'facts'. "A thing that is indisputably the case."

That is in fact conform with the popular based justice 'Innocent until proven guilty'.


FY; I never said Inquisitorial court system doesn't exist. That was you assumed for no reason. If i had said that, you would be able to quote my post indicating Inquisitorial court system doesn't exist. Like i said, it is huge misunderstanding from your side.

 

[mr.robot]

Except Nawaz Sharif has no money on his account. Everything he allegedly had transferred to his children allegedly. I had to use the word allegedly twice because they are not proven yet. Despite of narratives that took place, all those contradictions make the case weaker if anything. That doesn't reveal anything. That's why the case is still going on.

No money, no tax. Even today, his whole case is riding on the whimsical stance like charity from Qatar,...etc. Despite of some contradiction in their parts, even then they are pretty consistent from no money to charity. Nawaz Sharif literally has no money in his account, hence he cannot be held liability.

If they were really guilty by the account of the evidence or better yet, as you said, the court would have announced the decision by now. The fact that the court is taking so long suggests there is nothing concrete evidence that is holding on the court. At the same time that buys more time for the prosecutors to build the case stronger if certain discovery of evidence is found in the last minute.

That's why i am not hopeful from this case. I have witnessed many allegedly criminals manipulated the case to escape unscathed. Big fan of lawyering stuffs. I have always found that fascinating. It is like finding a way to get around the system and get through unscathed.

Can't you understand one thing that even if there is concrete evidence, all parties have to present their case. You think that Judges announce their decision just by reading papers presented by parties.

Who in their right mind would indict a person on first 5 hearings without listening all the parties and mind it here PM of the country is involved? When respondents present their case, they might have other documents or explain previous documents in such a way that we can't see.

As far as NS is concerned, you are now talking about merits of case and how he is involved. For that you have to also wait for the arguments of petitioners to be concluded where they are building a case about him being involved.