Farah Sohail
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2012
- Messages
- 7,228
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
NS ki disqualifications tu pakki hai, InshaAllah... Ab dekhna ye hai le Ishaq Dar disqualify hotay hian ya unka issue trial court bhej dein ge direct?
Panama leak Case Proceedings - JIT Report, News, Updates And Discussion
- Thread starter war&peace
- Start date
- Status
PakPak
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2017
- Messages
- 305
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
How do we know its pakki? I am getting a bad feeling from the judges.
This case should be over after Qatari letters but its not.
AUz
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2010
- Messages
- 8,595
- Reaction score
- -12
- Country
- Location
Kidhar janab?
Some the signs of it---it looks that SC will send the issue to trial court just like they did with JiT (without giving their own verdict and disqualifying Nawaz Shareef).
Btw, if Maryam Nawaz's fraudulent documents are not challenged in the court---why is SC not disqualifying her from holding any public office as she tried to commit fraud with the SC?
Farah Sohail
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2012
- Messages
- 7,228
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
Justice Ijazul Ahsan seemed very serious today... Ab tu advocate bhi badlay badlay lag rahay hian.. Woh bhi samajh gaye hain .. I am almost sure, regd NS disqualification
I think NS is gone...... Maryam ka lawyer tu abhi tak nahi aaya
Sc judges decisions are usually 360 degree different in angle than their observations..
Moonlight
MODERATOR
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2015
- Messages
- 6,406
- Reaction score
- 42
- Country
- Location
Unfortunately yes and missing the fun convo live -_-
Been in fever since last 2 days. But I go to sleep late :p
Giving defendant enough time to prove himself innocent? Which he's not and judges know it too. I believe they are prolonging the case either to show the supporters of PMLn and PMLn itself that they are fair or they want to humiliate them.
InshAllah the verdict at the end is gonna be in favor of Pakistan and against potato faced.
PakPak
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2017
- Messages
- 305
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Kashif Abassi, Sabir Sheikh Arshad Sharif etc are all correct, a normal man right would have been thrashed left right and center if they never answered questions or submitted fake documents....yet these morons are still in the game.
Moonlight
MODERATOR
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2015
- Messages
- 6,406
- Reaction score
- 42
- Country
- Location
Adding to that
Judges ne yeh bhi kaha hai ke JIT pe less trust show Kia hai plus Jaise JIT ke members ko answer diye wo bhi count ho ga
I think by that they mean, PMLn & company wasn't giving respect to JIT members during the investigation.
Or yeh bhi ke mostly answers nahi kiye
"Hume yaad nahi"
"Hume pata nahi"
"Shayd"
Aise answers zaida thay
Devil Soul
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2010
- Messages
- 22,931
- Reaction score
- 45
- Country
- Location
No evidence of corruption found against PM in JIT investigation, counsel argues in SC
By Hasnaat Malik
Published: July 19, 2017
78SHARES
SHARE TWEET EMAIL
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. PHOTO: REUTERS / FILE
ISLAMABAD: The six-member Joint Investigation Team (JIT) tasked to probe the Sharif family’s offshore wealth did not level any allegations of corruption against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in its report, his counsel argued in the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
“The JIT did not say in its report that the prime minister misused his power to earn money,” Khawaja Haris said while presenting his arguments before the three-judge bench of the top court — headed by Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan.
PM Nawaz’s counsel contended that the high-powered inquiry panel did not level any allegations of corruption against his client as no documents were procured by the probe body to prove the premier’s ownership of the London flats. “No document has been submitted to show that the prime minister is the real owner,” he maintained, adding the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) could not proceed with an investigation against his client.
ADVERTISEMENT
Ad
Onus still on Sharifs to give money trail: SC
Meanwhile, Justice Ijazul Ahsan observed that the ruling family did not produce any document to establish Hussain Nawaz (PM’s son) was the original owner of London flats but the JIT, on the other hand, found out that Maryam Nawaz (PM’s daughter) was the real owner of those apartments.
The SC judge further questioned why the prime minister claimed on the floor of Parliament that all relevant documents are available to show the source of funds used to obtain the offshore properties.
Another judge, Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh, remarked that the judges could not shut their eyes to the fact that no document was submitted by the Sharif family to substantiate the source of funds used to establish Hill Metal, a leading steel company in Saudi Arabia allegedly owned by the ruling family. “Though source of fund has not been provided by the prime minister, he received 86 per cent profit from the same business,” he observed.
SCBA, LHCBA call for countrywide strike
Justice Ejaz inquired as to how PM Nawaz’s children acquired offshore assets in 1990s when they had no sources of income. Later, the premier’s counsel concluded his arguments while Tariq Hassan, counsel for Finance Minister Ishaq Dar, was presenting his arguments until the filing of this report.
Where did funds for properties in KSA, London, and Dubai come from: SC judges ask PM's lawyer
Haseeb BhattiUpdated July 19, 2017
174
34
A day after the Supreme Court (SC) pointedly inquired about Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's money trail, the premier's counsel reiterated that his client had presented details of all his assets to the joint investigation team (JIT) that was mandated to probe allegations of money laundering against the Sharif family.
Senior counsel Khawaja Harris on Wednesday told the three-member apex bench, headed by Justice Ejaz Afzal and comprising Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed and Justice Ijazul Ahsan, that the prime minister had provided details of all assets and sources of income in the form of tax returns.
“We will take a decision after looking at all the evidence,” Justice Ejaz Afzal told Harris as he completed his arguments before the bench. “Bring the [money trail] record and the discussion on the documents will end.”
Ishaq Dar’s lawyer begins arguments
“Have you also brought a Qatari letter with you?” Justice Azmat Saeed asked Finance Minister Ishaq Dar's lawyer, Tariq Hasan, as he began his arguments before the bench.
The lawyer's defence bore similarities to the arguments presented by Harris, as he told the court that the JIT had exceeded its mandate. An objection to the JIT’s report was included in the documents submitted to the apex court on Dar’s behalf on Monday.
“If you have so many objections, you should go to the trial court,” Justice Azmat Saeed remarked.
Hasan alleged that Dar had been "dragged" into the case by the JIT and did not actually have any direct involvement, to which Justice Ijazul Ahsan replied, “I can tell you Ishaq Dar’s connection to this case.” The name of the finance minister's nephew is included in the transactions relating to the Gulf Steel Mills, the judge elaborated, adding that money from the Hill Metal Establishment was transferred to the minister’s son, Ali Dar.
The judges quizzed the lawyer on his statement that the JIT had been “dishonest” in its investigations and hadn’t reviewed the submitted documents. “You had said that you did not submit any documents, yet you’re giving these statements,” said Justice Ijazul Ahsan, asking the lawyer to submit further documents at the next hearing (Thursday).
Sharif family's foreign properties
During his arguments on Wednesday morning, Harris said that according to the laws of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), "an individual cannot be held accountable for the properties and assets that are in the name of his wife and children." He added that the PM's relatives had also not concealed any assets.
In reference to the judges' observation that the PM had remained evasive in answering the questions put forward by the JIT, Harris responded that the team had not inquired about any other properties, maintaining that his client had not concealed any assets, nor did he own any benami properties.
“The real question is where did the money for [the Sharif family’s] properties in Saudi Arabia, Dubai and London come from?”Justice Ijazul Ahsan remarked. “We have not yet received an answer to this fundamental question.”
The judges told the lawyer that Chapter Four (Gulf Steel Mills/Gifts) of the JIT’s report contains “dangerous” documents and talks about the trust deed of the four Avenfield flats in London’s Park Lane neighbourhood, executed between Maryam Nawaz and Hussain Nawaz in February 2006, which was declared false by the JIT in its report over.
Harris told the bench that the PM, when asked about the trust deed by the JIT, had acknowledged that he was aware of the settlement, but did not know the details. He added that his client can only be held accountable for the properties under his name, maintaining that the PM has no connection to the London flats.
“Are there any records available with Hassan and Hussain Nawaz that can prove that the PM does not have any connection with the London flats?” asked Justice Ejaz Afzal.
If Hussain is the beneficial owner of the flats, then proof for the same should be provided, he remarked, noting that in the documents received by the court, Maryam Nawaz is shown as the beneficial owner.
“The connection between the PM and the London flats is based on speculation. There are no documents available to prove this,” the lawyer said.
“Why do you keep insisting that all the records are available?” Justice Ijazul Ahsan asked the lawyer, directing him to show the documents relating to the agreement signed with Minerva Financial Services Limited ─ the holding company for Nescoll Limited and Nielson Enterprises Limited, the owners of the four London flats ─ to ascertain who signed them.
"Where is the money trail?"
During Tuesday's hearing, the apex bench had asked about the PM's money trail, saying, "We've been waiting for it since day one." The prime minister and his family members had remained evasive in answering the questions put forward by the JIT, added the judges.
The bench had reminded the PM's lawyer that the onus of establishing a money trail after claiming ownership of the Avenfield flats was on the Sharif family, adding that the money trail of the flats "remained shrouded in mystery — even to this day."
The apex bench had also asked the counsel point-blank whether the judges should form their own opinion over the concealment of facts by his client or refer the matter to an accountability court.
Harris had argued that the JIT had exceeded its mandate by recommending the SC to reopen 15 cases against his client. He also questioned the authenticity of the documents obtained from the UK and the UAE that were included in the JIT's report.
The bench had resumed the Panamagate case on Monday, nearly three months after ordering the formation of a JIT to investigate the allegations of money laundering against the Sharif family.
Presenting his statement before the bench on Monday, Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf's (PTI) lead counsel Naeem Bokhari had requested that PM Nawaz Sharif should be asked to come to the court for questioning. During his arguments, Bokhari highlighted several findings of the JIT report that he said "incriminate" the Sharif family.
By Hasnaat Malik
Published: July 19, 2017
78SHARES
SHARE TWEET EMAIL
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. PHOTO: REUTERS / FILE
ISLAMABAD: The six-member Joint Investigation Team (JIT) tasked to probe the Sharif family’s offshore wealth did not level any allegations of corruption against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in its report, his counsel argued in the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
“The JIT did not say in its report that the prime minister misused his power to earn money,” Khawaja Haris said while presenting his arguments before the three-judge bench of the top court — headed by Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan.
PM Nawaz’s counsel contended that the high-powered inquiry panel did not level any allegations of corruption against his client as no documents were procured by the probe body to prove the premier’s ownership of the London flats. “No document has been submitted to show that the prime minister is the real owner,” he maintained, adding the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) could not proceed with an investigation against his client.
ADVERTISEMENT
Ad
Onus still on Sharifs to give money trail: SC
Meanwhile, Justice Ijazul Ahsan observed that the ruling family did not produce any document to establish Hussain Nawaz (PM’s son) was the original owner of London flats but the JIT, on the other hand, found out that Maryam Nawaz (PM’s daughter) was the real owner of those apartments.
The SC judge further questioned why the prime minister claimed on the floor of Parliament that all relevant documents are available to show the source of funds used to obtain the offshore properties.
Another judge, Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh, remarked that the judges could not shut their eyes to the fact that no document was submitted by the Sharif family to substantiate the source of funds used to establish Hill Metal, a leading steel company in Saudi Arabia allegedly owned by the ruling family. “Though source of fund has not been provided by the prime minister, he received 86 per cent profit from the same business,” he observed.
SCBA, LHCBA call for countrywide strike
Justice Ejaz inquired as to how PM Nawaz’s children acquired offshore assets in 1990s when they had no sources of income. Later, the premier’s counsel concluded his arguments while Tariq Hassan, counsel for Finance Minister Ishaq Dar, was presenting his arguments until the filing of this report.
Where did funds for properties in KSA, London, and Dubai come from: SC judges ask PM's lawyer
Haseeb BhattiUpdated July 19, 2017
174
34
A day after the Supreme Court (SC) pointedly inquired about Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's money trail, the premier's counsel reiterated that his client had presented details of all his assets to the joint investigation team (JIT) that was mandated to probe allegations of money laundering against the Sharif family.
Senior counsel Khawaja Harris on Wednesday told the three-member apex bench, headed by Justice Ejaz Afzal and comprising Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed and Justice Ijazul Ahsan, that the prime minister had provided details of all assets and sources of income in the form of tax returns.
“We will take a decision after looking at all the evidence,” Justice Ejaz Afzal told Harris as he completed his arguments before the bench. “Bring the [money trail] record and the discussion on the documents will end.”
Ishaq Dar’s lawyer begins arguments
“Have you also brought a Qatari letter with you?” Justice Azmat Saeed asked Finance Minister Ishaq Dar's lawyer, Tariq Hasan, as he began his arguments before the bench.
The lawyer's defence bore similarities to the arguments presented by Harris, as he told the court that the JIT had exceeded its mandate. An objection to the JIT’s report was included in the documents submitted to the apex court on Dar’s behalf on Monday.
“If you have so many objections, you should go to the trial court,” Justice Azmat Saeed remarked.
Hasan alleged that Dar had been "dragged" into the case by the JIT and did not actually have any direct involvement, to which Justice Ijazul Ahsan replied, “I can tell you Ishaq Dar’s connection to this case.” The name of the finance minister's nephew is included in the transactions relating to the Gulf Steel Mills, the judge elaborated, adding that money from the Hill Metal Establishment was transferred to the minister’s son, Ali Dar.
The judges quizzed the lawyer on his statement that the JIT had been “dishonest” in its investigations and hadn’t reviewed the submitted documents. “You had said that you did not submit any documents, yet you’re giving these statements,” said Justice Ijazul Ahsan, asking the lawyer to submit further documents at the next hearing (Thursday).
Sharif family's foreign properties
During his arguments on Wednesday morning, Harris said that according to the laws of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), "an individual cannot be held accountable for the properties and assets that are in the name of his wife and children." He added that the PM's relatives had also not concealed any assets.
In reference to the judges' observation that the PM had remained evasive in answering the questions put forward by the JIT, Harris responded that the team had not inquired about any other properties, maintaining that his client had not concealed any assets, nor did he own any benami properties.
“The real question is where did the money for [the Sharif family’s] properties in Saudi Arabia, Dubai and London come from?”Justice Ijazul Ahsan remarked. “We have not yet received an answer to this fundamental question.”
The judges told the lawyer that Chapter Four (Gulf Steel Mills/Gifts) of the JIT’s report contains “dangerous” documents and talks about the trust deed of the four Avenfield flats in London’s Park Lane neighbourhood, executed between Maryam Nawaz and Hussain Nawaz in February 2006, which was declared false by the JIT in its report over.
Harris told the bench that the PM, when asked about the trust deed by the JIT, had acknowledged that he was aware of the settlement, but did not know the details. He added that his client can only be held accountable for the properties under his name, maintaining that the PM has no connection to the London flats.
“Are there any records available with Hassan and Hussain Nawaz that can prove that the PM does not have any connection with the London flats?” asked Justice Ejaz Afzal.
If Hussain is the beneficial owner of the flats, then proof for the same should be provided, he remarked, noting that in the documents received by the court, Maryam Nawaz is shown as the beneficial owner.
“The connection between the PM and the London flats is based on speculation. There are no documents available to prove this,” the lawyer said.
“Why do you keep insisting that all the records are available?” Justice Ijazul Ahsan asked the lawyer, directing him to show the documents relating to the agreement signed with Minerva Financial Services Limited ─ the holding company for Nescoll Limited and Nielson Enterprises Limited, the owners of the four London flats ─ to ascertain who signed them.
"Where is the money trail?"
During Tuesday's hearing, the apex bench had asked about the PM's money trail, saying, "We've been waiting for it since day one." The prime minister and his family members had remained evasive in answering the questions put forward by the JIT, added the judges.
The bench had reminded the PM's lawyer that the onus of establishing a money trail after claiming ownership of the Avenfield flats was on the Sharif family, adding that the money trail of the flats "remained shrouded in mystery — even to this day."
The apex bench had also asked the counsel point-blank whether the judges should form their own opinion over the concealment of facts by his client or refer the matter to an accountability court.
Harris had argued that the JIT had exceeded its mandate by recommending the SC to reopen 15 cases against his client. He also questioned the authenticity of the documents obtained from the UK and the UAE that were included in the JIT's report.
The bench had resumed the Panamagate case on Monday, nearly three months after ordering the formation of a JIT to investigate the allegations of money laundering against the Sharif family.
Presenting his statement before the bench on Monday, Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf's (PTI) lead counsel Naeem Bokhari had requested that PM Nawaz Sharif should be asked to come to the court for questioning. During his arguments, Bokhari highlighted several findings of the JIT report that he said "incriminate" the Sharif family.
The Accountant
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2016
- Messages
- 8,504
- Reaction score
- 20
- Country
- Location
InshAllah ... aap k mun mn ghee shakar
Moonlight
MODERATOR
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2015
- Messages
- 6,406
- Reaction score
- 42
- Country
- Location
Arsalan
THINK TANK CHAIRMAN
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2008
- Messages
- 18,178
- Reaction score
- 65
- Country
- Location
They cannot decided based on what they know, have to decide based on what can be proven legally. Is lea even if they can see the whole thing they still need to follow the due process and give time to both sides and probe into both as well. THEN DECIDE. That is how these things work.
Moonlight
MODERATOR
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2015
- Messages
- 6,406
- Reaction score
- 42
- Country
- Location
Wohi to pm sahib ko pora time mil raha to prove himself innocent.
- Status
