I think you are confusing here Faez Esa also submitted review petition other than the review petition of Serena Esa, the judgement on Faez Esa was announced as 5-5 split.
6-4 decision came against the review petition of Serena Esa in her favour.
Further properties were claimed by Sarena Esa but failed to provide evidences and trail of funds on all three accounts as per FBR report.
1- As per her first claim
she was only 50% owner of the properties but refuse to establish that
how the rest of the amount for the purchase of properties were arrange .... ???
And who is the co-owner of the properties .... ???
2- As her second claim she was 100% owner but transfer only half of the amount of required to purchase the properties so again failed to establish how the rest of the funds were arranged.
3- As per case records
provided by Serena Esa herself, she accepted the violation of Banking law by sending money for the purchase of property using Pakistani Banking channel when it was not even allowed during that time period.
It was a an act of hiding the true purpose of remittance and act of deceiving the banking institutions.
4- It is because of this reason she herself while filling the remittance form wrote the purpose of remittance as Education of her children, for which remittances were form Pakistan allowed.