Assets Beyond Means:---The State Does Not Need To Prove Anything:---

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

Pakistanis are having a very hard time understanding the case behind " assets beyond means---and who has to prove what---". They still think that it is the job of the state to prove ill gotten funds & property by public servants & their associates---.

The state does not need to prove anything---. It falls all on the shoulders of the accused to prove their innocence.

The asset beyond their means cases deal with govt servants---politicians---police officers---personal in sensitive jobs or any govt employee---in case of dealing of the state.

The public servants can be charged to declare their assets and prove their assets and show trail of funds---and show assets are within their means---. Then their family members and those close to them may also be charged to prove the funds or show the trail of acquiring the funds and means of those funds---.

The govt does not need to prove anything in this case---. It is all on the accused to prove---. Once it determines that there are assets beyond means---it can open proceedings and take legal action accordingly---.

This procedure has been used in the west to catch spies for ages---.

A simple basic example being---Sir---you have a $3000 a month job---yet you have a new sports car---a rolex watch---there are expensive empty bottles of wine in your trash can---you are visiting expensive night clubs $ restaurants---please show where those funds are coming from---what is the source of those funds.

Then it came to catch bad cops in los angeles and miami area during the 80's when the drugs started coming in rampantly from Columbia---.

Interior dept would start the investigation---Mr. so & so---you get 4500 a month salary---yet you are wearing $200 pair of italian shoes---$800 italian suit---$150 tie---$100 shirt---you are seen at expensive night clubs and restaurants where your average night bill is 250-350 dollars---. You are wearing a 18kt gold Rolex---you are driving an expensive Porsche---would you please explain where did this money coming from---what is the source of these funds.

Next---your father bought a new house for cash---your sister got a new house as well---. They don't have any resource---share with us where did that money come from---. Your brother is driving a new pickup truck even though he was without a job---your sister also has a new house----.

I can go on and on---that is how the assets beyond means got contained here in the west---.

So---in these case---the state does not prove anything---. It challenges any citizen that the state thinks the citizen has assets beyond his means---and challenges them to prove otherwise---. Show a source of funds---where they came from---.

 

[B.K.N]

Sir everyone understands this except hardcore patwaris and jialas

 

[H!TchHiker]

A person cannot be convicted in a case of assets beyond means unless the investigators thoroughly investigate and bring on record the sources of income of an accused and establish any nexus between misuse of his authority while holding a public office and amassing of wealth or accumulation of assets by him.

Just for debate no love for PML-N and there way of ruling...There is an issue of credibility on justice system...people have been hanged based on pressure admitted by Judges later on. Justice must be seen to served,,,

 

[HRK]

Hi,

Pakistanis are having a very hard time understanding the case behind " assets beyond means---and who has to prove what---". They still think that it is the job of the state to prove ill gotten funds & property by public servants & their associates---.

The state does not need to prove anything---. It falls all on the shoulders of the accused to prove their innocence.

The asset beyond their means cases deal with govt servants---politicians---police officers---personal in sensitive jobs or any govt employee---in case of dealing of the state.

The public servants can be charged to declare their assets and prove their assets and show trail of funds---and show assets are within their means---. Then their family members and those close to them may also be charged to prove the funds or show the trail of acquiring the funds and means of those funds---.

The govt does not need to prove anything in this case---. It is all on the accused to prove---. Once it determines that there are assets beyond means---it can open proceedings and take legal action accordingly---.

This procedure has been used in the west to catch spies for ages---.

A simple basic example being---Sir---you have a $3000 a month job---yet you have a new sports car---a rolex watch---there are expensive empty bottles of wine in your trash can---you are visiting expensive night clubs $ restaurants---please show where those funds are coming from---what is the source of those funds.

Then it came to catch bad cops in los angeles and miami area during the 80's when the drugs started coming in rampantly from Columbia---.

Interior dept would start the investigation---Mr. so & so---you get 4500 a month salary---yet you are wearing $200 pair of italian shoes---$800 italian suit---$150 tie---$100 shirt---you are seen at expensive night clubs and restaurants where your average night bill is 250-350 dollars---. You are wearing a 18kt gold Rolex---you are driving an expensive Porsche---would you please explain where did this money coming from---what is the source of these funds.

Next---your father bought a new house for cash---your sister got a new house as well---. They don't have any resource---share with us where did that money come from---. Your brother is driving a new pickup truck even though he was without a job---your sister also has a new house----.

I can go on and on---that is how the assets beyond means got contained here in the west---.

So---in these case---the state does not prove anything---. It challenges any citizen that the state thinks the citizen has assets beyond his means---and challenges them to prove otherwise---. Show a source of funds---where they came from---.

most people understand but mentality of corrupt class was portrayed in best possible way by Nawaz Sharif when he said Its not the concern of Nation and Judiciary if he have assets beyond means

A person cannot be convicted in a case of assets beyond means unless the investigators thoroughly investigate and bring on record the sources of income of an accused and establish any nexus between misuse of his authority while holding a public office and amassing of wealth or accumulation of assets by him.

Plz read relevant Laws .....

NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ORDINANCE
* ORDINANCE NO.XVIII OF 1999(link)
Definitions:
5-(c) "Assets" means any property owned, controlled by or belonging to any accused, whether directly or indirectly, or held benami in the name of his spouse or relatives or associates, whether within or outside Pakistan 3* which 4[he] cannot reasonably account 2[for], or for which 4[he] cannot prove payment of full and lawful consideration.

Corruption and corrupt practices

9 (a) A holder of a public office, or any other person, is said to commit or to have committed the offence of corruption and corrupt practices-

(v) if he or any of his dependents or benamidar owns, possesses, or has 4[acquired] right or title in any 5[“assets or holds irrevocable power of attorney in respect of any assets] or pecuniary resources disproportionate to his known sources of income, which he cannot 1[reasonably] account for 2[or maintains a standard of living beyond that which is commensurate with his sources of income];

 

[H!TchHiker]

most people understand but mentality of corrupt class was portrayed in best possible way by Nawaz Sharif when he said Its not the concern of Nation and Judiciary if he have assets beyond means


Plz read relevant Laws .....

NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ORDINANCE
* ORDINANCE NO.XVIII OF 1999(link)
Definitions:
5-(c) "Assets" means any property owned, controlled by or belonging to any accused, whether directly or indirectly, or held benami in the name of his spouse or relatives or associates, whether within or outside Pakistan 3* which 4[he] cannot reasonably account 2[for], or for which 4[he] cannot prove payment of full and lawful consideration.

Corruption and corrupt practices

9 (a) A holder of a public office, or any other person, is said to commit or to have committed the offence of corruption and corrupt practices-

(v) if he or any of his dependents or benamidar owns, possesses, or has 4[acquired] right or title in any 5[“assets or holds irrevocable power of attorney in respect of any assets] or pecuniary resources disproportionate to his known sources of income, which he cannot 1[reasonably] account for 2[or maintains a standard of living beyond that which is commensurate with his sources of income];

Good read..Act is simply defining the assets or custodian. Or benami asset definition .Onus or burden to proof the source of income disproportionate to status lies with prosecutor..

 

[HRK]

Onus or burden to proof the source of income disproportionate to status lies with prosecutor..

Persecution just have to investigate money trail of the known and Lawful source of income If it is found missing its the responsibility of accused to establish money trail beyond doubt from known and lawful source of income

 

[H!TchHiker]

Persecution just have to investigate money trail of the known and Lawful source of income If it is found missing its the responsibility of accused to establish money trail beyond doubt from known and lawful source of income

the prosecution has to establish the preliminary facts” before “the onus shifts and the defence is called upon to disprove the presumption of guilt..Just investigation is not enough..and unable to ascertain the money trail by prosecution does not lead to conclude otherwise...

 

[Arsalan 345]

All in all,there is no accountability at all.from elite class to average,everyone is earning money from unknown sources.

 

[HRK]

the prosecution has to establish the preliminary facts” before “the onus shifts and the defence is called upon to disprove the presumption of guilt

Exactly Preliminary facts are required to be established but that does not put burden of proof on persecution for establishing money trial by investigating agency or its officer, this the responsibility of the owner (beneficiary owner)/ title holder of the assets or financial proceeds

Same as Anti Money Laundering Act-2010 plz read (link)

Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010

9. Investigation.—(1) The investigating officer shall, not later than seven days from the date of order of attachment made under sub-section (1) of section 8 or, seizure of property under section 14 or section 15, serve a notice of not less than thirty days on the person concerned. The notice shall call upon such person to indicate the sources of his income, earning or assets, out of which or by means of which he has acquired the property attached under sub-section (1) of section 8, or, seized under section 14 or section 15, the evidence on which he relies and other relevant information and particulars, and to show

 

[Sine Nomine]

the prosecution has to establish the preliminary facts” before “the onus shifts and the defence is called upon to disprove the presumption of guilt..Just investigation is not enough..and unable to ascertain the money trail by prosecution does not lead to conclude otherwise...

In asset case burden of proof lies on accused,Govt fights case on the facts that assets of Mr.X are from means beyond his earning,for that Govt lists both his assets and his earnings.
Now Mr.X has to provide valid source of income for justification of his assets or face the Music.
That is applicable on every citizen of state.
Prosecution never provides any money trail in assets case,it only provides list of your assets and your earnings.If your earnings are low as compared to your assets either you should provide money trail or go on media and blame state.
Money trail by Govt is only provided when they have to prove some financial crime,aid in crime,fraud, funding of crime or money laundering.

 

[MastanKhan]

Good read..Act is simply defining the assets or custodian. Or benami asset definition .Onus or burden to proof the source of income disproportionate to status lies with prosecutor..

Hi,

The onus of proof DOES NOT LIES WITH THE PROSECUTOR---. This here is a case of financial crime---the prosecutor can just sit back and enjoy the proceedings once the charges are filed and the case goes to hearing---.

Once the ball starts rolling---you will get to understand it in due time---.

 

[The Accountant]

A person cannot be convicted in a case of assets beyond means unless the investigators thoroughly investigate and bring on record the sources of income of an accused and establish any nexus between misuse of his authority while holding a public office and amassing of wealth or accumulation of assets by him.

Just for debate no love for PML-N and there way of ruling...There is an issue of credibility on justice system...people have been hanged based on pressure admitted by Judges later on. Justice must be seen to served,,,

Peosecution has to prove the beneficial ownership of the assets nit appearing in income tax returns then its all on defandant... he has only 2 ways. Eithee to establish that he has no relatiobship with the assets or show the source of income by legal means

 

[shah_123]

If we apply this rule in letter & spirit, I am sure that most of our bureaucracy, judges, politicians, lawyers, journalists, generals etc., will be in Jail.