Panama leak Case Proceedings - JIT Report, News, Updates And Discussion

[PakSword]

To be honest i will like justice to pervail here...

I dont know much about NAB law... but if burden of proof is reversed in that law...
Its absolutely pathetic than the performance of NAB.. which is like punjab thanedar ....pathetic

Not in Pakistan only, in many countries (specially Europe, US and Australia), the burden of proof has been reversed. Let me help you by finding a link.

And secondly, it is not pathetic at all. Have you seen pictures I have shared in my previous post? What if the father of the bride brings a letter from Qatar, that a shaikh gifted all this money to him for his daughter and he was not liable to pay a single penny of income tax on this money.. Will you as a judge accept it and rule in favor of the father?

Verdict will come before 23rd march... my prediction..
President can preside the parade and i dont think supreme court gives a damn....

So:

1 - You are still a PMLN supporter
2 - You also think that President will attend the ceremony instead of PM if judgement is out before 23rd? meaning you are assuming the verdict will disqualify PM? I though we PTI supporters were making these tall claims and PMLN guys were just rubbishing us..

 

[Mrc]

Not in Pakistan only, in many countries (specially Europe, US and Australia), the burden of proof has been reversed. Let me help you by finding a link.

And secondly, it is not pathetic at all. Have you seen pictures I have shared in my previous post? What if the father of the bride brings a letter from Qatar, that a shaikh gifted all this money to him for his daughter and he was not liable to pay a single penny of income tax on this money.. Will you as a judge accept it and rule in favor of the father?

Boss father is directly spending money here...NS is denying that he is spending money ... he says it was his father... and the pics u post are income tax notice ..not a verdict.i will see when this guy pays a single penny in tax

 

[PakSword]

Boss father is directly spending money here...NS is denying that he is spending money ... he says it was his father... and the pics u post are income tax notice ..not a verdict.i will see when this guy pays a single penny in tax

Boss, what if bride says that she received the money from Qatari who acted on a will of her great grandfather? Will Income Tax department leaver her father if she is not able to prove her source of income?

Anyway, just read this:

Illicit enrichment – wealth of public officials that is manifestly out of proportion to his or her present or past official emolument – is criminalized in Bangladesh; Hong Kong, China; India; Malaysia; Nepal; Pakistan; the Philippines and Singapore. To enhance the effectiveness of this provision, India, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan and the Philippines have shifted the burden of proof to the accused.

You can also read the document on OECD.ORG: Sanctioning and Prosecuting Corruption and Related Offenses - OECD

and the pics u post are income tax notice ..not a verdict.i will see when this guy pays a single penny in tax

Income tax office ne usay kis qanoon ke tehet notice bheja hai? By the way, do you know what an income tax notice looks like?

Unless Mr. Husaain Nawaz and Hassan Nawaz presents a credible source of income, that was used to buy flats in UK (Qatari letter is not a credible proof unless substantiated by records), their father who is a public office holder will have to be answerable.

If they can't do it, they should restore one of the DSPs of Karachi, who was dismissed as his son had a new Honda Accord 10-12 years back. Son, being only 22 years old at that time, couldn't provide the origin of income and DSP was first suspended, then dismissed.

 

[Mrc]

Illicit enrichment – wealth of public officials that is manifestly out of proportion to his or her present or past official emolument – is criminalized in Bangladesh; Hong Kong, China; India; Malaysia; Nepal; Pakistan; the Philippines and Singapore. To enhance the effectiveness of this provision, India, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan and the Philippines have shifted the burden of proof to the accused.

Interesting....

Despite that... very poor performance of NAB..

Lets see how supreme court sees this... i did not know about this law by the way...

 

[PakSword]

Interesting....

Despite that... very poor performance of NAB..

Lets see how supreme court sees this... i did not know about this law by the way...

SC already said in their remarks that burden of proof is on Shareef Family. They have asked for the following:

1 - Income source of Mr. Hassan and Hussain Nawaz as they have sent 52 crore as a gift to their father.
2 - Transfer receipts against which the investment in Qatar was made.
3 - Bank transactions from Qatari investments to settle different loans (such as Hudaibiya etc)
4 - Ownership transfer documents (when Qatari transferred the assets to Mr. H. Shareef)
5 - Declaration of beneficiaries to the UK inland revenue?

Interestingly, nothing has been provided, instead, a Qatari letter and an Excel sheet has been provided. I am an ordinary person and even I can make a better sheet than what Shareefs provided to court.

Regarding NAB, this is where even NAB chairman agrees with you.. Because he has already said in the court that he couldn't take any action against ruling elite because he was not instructed by any "regulator".

By the way, do you know NAB doesn't have any regulator and bench assumed that the regulator NAB chairman referred to was none other than Mr. N Sharif?

 

[Farah Sohail]

SC already said in their remarks that burden of proof is on Shareef Family. They have asked for the following:

1 - Income source of Mr. Hassan and Hussain Nawaz as they have sent 52 crore as a gift to their father.
2 - Transfer receipts against which the investment in Qatar was made.
3 - Bank transactions from Qatari investments to settle different loans (such as Hudaibiya etc)
4 - Ownership transfer documents (when Qatari transferred the assets to Mr. H. Shareef)
5 - Declaration of beneficiaries to the UK inland revenue?

Interestingly, nothing has been provided, instead, a Qatari letter and an Excel sheet has been provided. I am an ordinary Chartered Accountant and I can make a better sheet than what Shareefs provided to court.

Regarding NAB, this is where even NAB chairman agrees with you.. Because he has already said in the court that he couldn't take any action against ruling elite because he was not instructed by any "regulator".

By the way, do you know NAB doesn't have any regulator and bench assumed that the regulator NAB chairman referred to was none other than Mr. N Sharif?

Bench ne shayad yeh bhi kaha tha..ke adaalat ko requested documents/ material provide na karna bhi crime hai..and it can be very dangerous./risky.. Aur kaha tha ke aap khatarnaak juaa khel rahay hain.. Ye bhi poocha tha ke ye aap ki strategy ka hissa hai?

I am hopeful for strong evrdict against Nawaz Sharif

 

[PakSword]

Bench ne shayad yeh bhi kaha tha..ke adaalat ko requested documents/ material provide na karna bhi crime hai..and it can be very dangerous./risky.. Aur kaha tha ke aap khatarnaak juaa khel rahay hain.. Ye bhi poocha tha ke ye aap ki strategy ka hissa hai?

I am hopeful for strong evrdict against Nawaz Sharif

Suspension se ziada kuch nahi hoga filhaal.. Case commission main jaega...

Nawaz Sharif agar iss muqadmay main bach kar nikalnay main kaamyaab hogaya tou main yaqeen karlunga ke hum BANANA REPUBLIC main rehtay hain...

There is no way out for him... NOOOOOO WAAYYYY... Main soch soch kar pagal hogaya hun ke kaisay niklay ga.. mujhay kuch nahi samajh aarahi...

 

[Mrc]

SC already said in their remarks that burden of proof is on Shareef Family. They have asked for the following:

1 - Income source of Mr. Hassan and Hussain Nawaz as they have sent 52 crore as a gift to their father.
2 - Transfer receipts against which the investment in Qatar was made.
3 - Bank transactions from Qatari investments to settle different loans (such as Hudaibiya etc)
4 - Ownership transfer documents (when Qatari transferred the assets to Mr. H. Shareef)
5 - Declaration of beneficiaries to the UK inland revenue?

Interestingly, nothing has been provided, instead, a Qatari letter and an Excel sheet has been provided. I am an ordinary Chartered Accountant and I can make a better sheet than what Shareefs provided to court.

Regarding NAB, this is where even NAB chairman agrees with you.. Because he has already said in the court that he couldn't take any action against ruling elite because he was not instructed by any "regulator".

By the way, do you know NAB doesn't have any regulator and bench assumed that the regulator NAB chairman referred to was none other than Mr. N Sharif?

No tangible proofs have been given ... thats understood...

So it would boil down to one point... NS link to properties... was it him or his father?? Again no proof either way

 

[El_Swordsmen]

SC already said in their remarks that burden of proof is on Shareef Family. They have asked for the following:

1 - Income source of Mr. Hassan and Hussain Nawaz as they have sent 52 crore as a gift to their father.
2 - Transfer receipts against which the investment in Qatar was made.
3 - Bank transactions from Qatari investments to settle different loans (such as Hudaibiya etc)
4 - Ownership transfer documents (when Qatari transferred the assets to Mr. H. Shareef)
5 - Declaration of beneficiaries to the UK inland revenue?

Interestingly, nothing has been provided, instead, a Qatari letter and an Excel sheet has been provided. I am an ordinary Chartered Accountant and I can make a better sheet than what Shareefs provided to court.

Regarding NAB, this is where even NAB chairman agrees with you.. Because he has already said in the court that he couldn't take any action against ruling elite because he was not instructed by any "regulator".

By the way, do you know NAB doesn't have any regulator and bench assumed that the regulator NAB chairman referred to was none other than Mr. N Sharif?

how dare you question credibility of that excel sheet. It was a genuine evidence aur aisi sheet app sari zindagi laga k nhi bana saktay !!

by the way Supreme Court's remarks on chairman NAB was historic i would say,"NAB ny apnay app ko hamary samnay dafan kardia, ye kisi idaray kay maflooj honay ka ideal case hai"

 

[PakSword]

No tangible proofs have been given ... thats understood...

So it would boil down to one point... NS link to properties... was it him or his father?? Again no proof either way

Ufff..

Again you will have to read what law says all over the world for public office holders.. They have to provide proofs of the money piled by their immediate family members.. Read again PUBLIC OFFICE HOLDERS..

That's why NSs request to throw the petition out as his name was not there, was rejected by the court.. and his lawyers had to fight all the way to the end...

My friend, tum 50 saal pehlay ki duniya main reh rahay ho..

 

[Farah Sohail]

Suspension se ziada kuch nahi hoga filhaal.. Case commission main jaega...

Nawaz Sharif agar iss muqadmay main bach kar nikalnay main kaamyaab hogaya tou main yaqeen karlunga ke hum BANANA REPUBLIC main rehtay hain...

There is no way out for him... NOOOOOO WAAYYYY... Main soch soch kar pagal hogaya hun ke kaisay niklay ga.. mujhay kuch nahi samajh aarahi...

Baat disqualification tak bhi jaa sakti hai ...agar judges chahein tu Woh bhtt saaray articles of constituition laa saktay hain tu support it... Aur jahan tak 62/63 ka taalluq hai... Tu humein yaad rakhna chahye ke sheikih rashid ki petition hai hi, 62/63 par... Tu aisa ho hi nahi sakta ke judges us par koi remakrs na dein.. 62/63 ko ignore nahi karsaktay verdict main... Aur agar sheikh rashid ki petition ko dismiss bhi karein ge...tab bhi judges ko arguments denay honge ke woh 62/63 par declaration kiun nahi de rahay? Aur sheikh rahshid ki ptition kiun dismiss karrahay hain? Woh ziada mushkil hoga judges k elite...ye justify karna.. Agar judges kuch na karein..sirf hearing ke dauran ke remarks hi publish kardein verdict main..tab bhi election commission k through disqualification hosakti hai... Lekin kuch na kuch tu zikr aayega hi 62/63 ka.. Kiun ke sheikh rashid ki petition hi yeh hai...veridct main usay ignore nahi kiya jaasakta... Ab dekhtay hain ke judges kis hadd tak us par baat kartay hain?

 

[PakSword]

by the way Supreme Court's remarks on chairman NAB was historic i would say,"NAB ny apnay app ko hamary samnay dafan kardia, ye kisi idaray kay maflooj honay ka ideal case hai"

Chairman NAB agar mujhay kabhi mil gaya tou main usay apnay haath ki bani huee Nihari khilaunga... lollll..

 

[Mrc]

Ufff..

Again you will have to read what law says all over the world for public office holders.. They have to provide proofs of the money piled by their immediate family members.. Read again PUBLIC OFFICE HOLDERS..

That's why NSs request to throw the petition out as his name was not there, was rejected by the court.. and his lawyers had to fight all the way to the end...

My friend, tum 50 saal pehlay ki duniya main reh rahay ho..

Flats was bought in 2006... he was not holding any office than

 

[Farah Sohail]

how dare you question credibility of that excel sheet. It was a genuine evidence aur aisi sheet app sari zindagi laga k nhi bana saktay !!

by the way Supreme Court's remarks on chairman NAB was historic i would say,"NAB ny apnay app ko hamary samnay dafan kardia, ye kisi idaray kay maflooj honay ka ideal case hai"

Aap aaj bhtt din baad nazar aaye?

Waisy..wheres @Emmie ? Havent seen him since many many days... Woh tu hearing ke ending days main bhi nahi thay..kahan hain?

 

[PakSword]

Baat disqualification tak bhi jaa sakti hai ...agar judges chahein tu Woh bhtt saaray articles of constituition laa saktay hain tu support it... Aur jahan tak 62/63 ka taalluq hai... Tu humein yaad rakhna chahye ke sheikih rashid ki petition hai hi, 62/63 par... Tu aisa ho hi nahi sakta ke judges us par koi remakrs na dein.. 62/63 ko ignore nahi karsaktay verdict main... Aur agar sheikh rashid ki petition ko dismiss bhi karein ge...tab bhi judges ko arguments denay honge ke woh 62/63 par declaration kiun nahi de rahay? Aur sheikh rahshid ki ptition kiun dismiss karrahay hain? Woh ziada mushkil hoga judges k elite...ye justify karna.. Agar judges kuch na karein..sirf hearing ke dauran ke remarks hi publish kardein verdict main..tab bhi election commission k through disqualification hosakti hai... Lekin kuch na kuch tu zikr aayega hi 62/63 ka.. Kiun ke sheikh rashid ki petition hi yeh hai...veridct main usay ignore nahi kiya jaasakta... Ab dekhtay hain ke judges kis hadd tak us par baat kartay hain?

Agar buhat ziada hua tou SC yeh keh sakti hai ke "aap Baddiyanat hain".. Baqi mujhay tou sachi baat hai commission main jata dikhai de raha hai yeh case.. lekin Chairman NAB ki wajah se NS ko suspend karna parega SC ko..