Panama Case - Post Verdict Discussion and Updates

[PakSword]

OK, the other meaning is there are avenues where shareef can still get reliefs....hmmm.

Have you ever heard that even if a video of stabbing is there, police still gathers other evidences.. like hair, blood stains, etc.. besides presenting available witnesses, and video experts..

You are right....5'-10 = 88Kg.

That's not bad at all.. I am 5'11" - 85 as well. You need to get your bad cholesterol checked.. It sometimes reduces free blood flow to important organs of the body such as brain and kidneys..

 

[Tameem]

Have you ever heard that even if a video of stabbing is there, police still gathers other evidences.. like hair, blood stains, etc.. besides presenting available witnesses, and video experts..

Right.

That's not bad at all.. I am 5'11" - 85 as well. You need to get your bad cholesterol checked.. It sometimes reduces free blood flow to important organs of the body such as brain and kidneys..

Thanks mate..I will.

 

[PakSword]

Thanks mate..I will.

I think Sukkar is the best place to get it checked.

 

[Path-Finder]

https://twitter.com/x/status/988733754603724800

 

[Shane]

An Innocent Question.
why every now and then JIT need to announce "New evidences arrival", didn't they have confidence on earlier provided evidences?

Straight answer:
New evidence makes the case stronger. Its the nature of MLA that takes time. Why fear it, it is in Sharifs favour according to the political narrative of Maryam ...

For the mentally squinted...A masoomana sawal of my own:
Why isn't a single piece of undoctored Registry, Record, Agreement not submitted yet by Sharifs...at least come up with that famous RENT AGREEMENT OR ITS BANK RECEIPTS that obnoxiously stuttering Hassan Nawaz claimed in BBC HARDTALK interview.

Please @Tameem take your pick from the above

@Tameem want me to post that Hassan Nawaz Hardtalk interview clip?

 

[Tameem]

Straight answer:
New evidence makes the case stronger. Its the nature of MLA that takes time. Why fear it, it is in Sharifs favour according to the political narrative of Maryam ...

For the mentally squinted...A masoomana sawal of my own:
Why isn't a single piece of undoctored Registry, Record, Agreement not submitted yet by Sharifs...at least come up with that famous RENT AGREEMENT OR ITS BANK RECEIPTS that obnoxiously stuttering Hassan Nawaz claimed in BBC HARDTALK interview.

Please @Tameem take your pick from the above

@Tameem want me to post that Hassan Nawaz Hardtalk interview clip?

Sharif's do provides money trail with famous Qatri letter....the point is there is money trail from Sharif's POV in the court.

 

[Shane]

That's not bad at all.. I am 5'11" - 85

Hey, I'm 6'2" and I'm 85 too

 

[PakSword]

Hey, I'm 6'2" and I'm 85 too

Then you are obviously thinner than me..

 

[Shane]

Sharif's do provides money trail with famous Qatri letter....the point is there is m

Hussain Nawaz himself has denied any Qatri involvement in his famous interview, lol. He was the one who establishment Jeddah Steel mill remember...lol.

Besides dear, Qatri letter is just a word of mouth...where are the qatri bank transactions, or agreements or transfer of funds RECEIPTS? Nothing! Not a single record!!! Just word of mouth.

Why dear @Tameem? The Qatari came for LNG signing but was not presented in trial court by Sharifs? Just political gimmicks...

Biggest hole in Qatari letter is as big as the bahind of Hussain Nawaz...ALHAMDULILLAH!!! ...Don't keep forgetting or I'll post the vid again that you love to watch so much...

 

[PakSword]

Sharif's do provides money trail with famous Qatri letter....the point is there is money trail from Sharif's POV in the court.

Here, they haven't covered all of the avenues.

You need to understand this.. if Qatari letter is accepted by the court, tomorrow, if I am caught with 10 times more property than the declared income (which was taxed), and I bring a letter from an Emirati friend, court will have to acquit me as well..

All the people who are in jail now on these charges should be allowed to purchase letters from their foreign friends, and then their foreign "letter sellers" should not be questioned because they are not Pakistanis.

 

[Tps43]

Hey, I'm 6'2" and I'm 85 too

And I'm 5'11 and 98

 

[PakSword]

And I'm 5'11 and 98

Bhai Jan.. forun se peshtar sukkar chalay jao!

 

[Shane]

And I'm 5'11 and 98

Wow, just two short of 100...do you eat out a lot?

 

[PakSword]

Yeh tou hathay se ukhar gaya..

 

[Farah Sohail]

Sharif's do provides money trail with famous Qatri letter....the point is there is money trail from Sharif's POV in the court.

Some excerpts from initial panama verdict: abt famous Qatari letter


On one of the dates of hearing of these petitions Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Sr. ASC, the then learned counsel for the children of respondent No. 1, dramatically, and with theatrical impact, took out an envelope from his brief and produced before the Court a document containing a statement of one Mr. Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jaber Al-Thani who statedly belongs to the royal family of Qatar and had remained a Prime Minister of that country in the past. That statement was made on November 05, 2016 and the signatures of the gentleman on that statement had been attested by the Ambassador of Pakistan to Qatar on the same day. That statement was not an affidavit nor the contents of the same had been attested by any authority or authorized person.

That document was dropped on the Court like a bombshell hoping that the same would destroy the allegations leveled in the present petitions by explaining as to how the properties in London had come in possession of respondent No. 1’s family and in the ownership of Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif, a son of respondent No. 1, and putting to rest the controversy about availability as well as legitimacy of the resources for acquisition of those properties. It is, however, ironical that the said bombshell has caused more damage to the case of respondent No. 1 and his children than to the case of the petitioners. In fact the devastation wreaked by that document upon the case of respondent No. 1 and his children may be incalculable and beyond their contemplation.

85. The first thought that comes to mind in the context of the said statement of Mr. Al-Thani is about its timing. In the first address to the nation respondent No. 1 talked about a factory near Makkah but not about any factory in Dubai and certainly not about any real estate business in Qatar as the source of funds for acquisition of the properties in London. In his second address to the nation respondent No. 1 did not talk about any specific source of funds for such acquisition at all. In his speech in the National Assembly respondent No. 1 introduced the factory in Dubai and the proceeds of its sale besides the purchase and sale of a factory in Jeddah (not near Makkah) but uttered no word about any investment in Qatar or any resource becoming available through any real estate business in Qatar. In those speeches respondent No. 1 had categorically said that those were the funds and resources through which the properties in London had been “purchased” and also that he had given the entire background of his family’s business and he had informed his countrymen about all the important stages of his family’s journey in business. He had maintained on that occasion that the “true” facts had been fully brought to the knowledge of his dear countrymen. He had also claimed that nothing had been concealed by him and that everything was like an “open book”. The subsequently introduced statement from Qatar, however, established beyond doubt that the speeches made by respondent No. 1 before the nation or its representatives in the National Assembly were not the whole truth and the book presented by him had many missing pages. When the speeches made by respondent No. 1 before the nation or its representatives in the National Assembly are juxtaposed with the above mentioned statement received from Qatar it becomes obvious that they are mutually destructive and cannot coexist simultaneously as the truth.

The above mentioned statement from Qatar has multiple other problems with it as well. It is obvious from that statement itself that the maker of the statement did not have personal knowledge of most of the critical things stated therein and even for the remaining things stated he was evasive at best. He had failed to disclose how the requisite funds were transferred by respondent No. 1’s father from Dubai to Qatar. He had not referred to any date or place of the transactions mentioned. He had failed to state about any document executed in furtherance of such transactions and he had also omitted to mention as to how the relevant funds were dealt with. No detail of the real estate business of Al-Thani family in Qatar was provided nor any record of investment in such business by respondent No. 1’s father had been referred to. The stated settlement of accounts in the year 2006 was mentioned in most unspecific terms with no details thereof having been provided and even the representative of Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif
mentioned in the statement was not identified. The stated wish of respondent No. 1’s father regarding his grandson being the beneficiary of the investment was spoken about in that statement in most generalized terms without any exactitude and without reference to any formal or informal instrument having been executed in that respect. As already mentioned above, respondent No. 1’s father namely Mian Muhammad Sharif had died in the year 2004. If that were so then no will of late Mian Muhammad Sharif was brought on the record of this case on the basis of which his investment in Qatar could be settled in the year 2006 in favour of one of his grandsons to the exclusion of all the legal heirs, particularly when that grandson was not even an heir. The maker of the above mentioned statement had never claimed in that statement that the two offshore companies which owned the relevant four properties in London were owned by Al-Thani family of Qatar and all that had been maintained in that statement was that the bearer share certificates of such companies were kept at that time in Qatar. No record of the relevant offshore companies was produced to show as to how and when Al-Thani family of Qatar had allowed the family of respondent No. 1 to use the said properties and then how those companies and properties were transferred to the ownership of a son of respondent No. 1. As already observed above, the said statement from Qatar has gone a long way in irretrievably damaging the earlier stands of respondent No. 1 and in fortifying the impression that he has not made a clean breast of himself and with every varying stance he has exposed himself further.