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

[QatariPrince]

Panama Papers JIT probe enters crucial, concluding stage
​

The powerful six-member Joint Investigation Team (JIT) tasked with probing the business dealings of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his sons abroad is entering a crucial stage, with the investigation heading towards conclusion.

Sources told Dawn the JIT was in the process of winding up the probe by next week, after which it would finish compiling the final investigation report by the second week of July before it was submitted to the apex court by the July 10 deadline.

On Saturday, the JIT in its meeting reviewed the documents pertaining to the business and tax records of the Sharif family that were submitted by Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) and Federal Board of Revenue (FBR).

In this regard, the JIT is summoning members of the Sharif family once again. The premier's cousin Tariq Shafi will appear before the high-powered JIT on Sunday, when insiders said he will be re-examined over his statements recorded during his earlier appearance before the body.

And on Monday, the JIT consisting of members from SECP, National Accountability Bureau, State Bank of Pakistan, Military Intelligence, Inter-Services Intelligence and Federal Investigation Agency, has summoned Hussain Nawaz, the prime minister's elder son.

Hassan Nawaz and Maryam Nawaz will appear before the body on Tuesday and Wednesday respectively, in what officials said will be the concluding week of the JIT tasked with collecting evidence within two months.

Insiders told DawnNews that the JIT summoned members of Sharif family for the second time after investigators found contrast between statements recorded by them and the documents submitted by relevant government departments.

The JIT was formed by the Supreme Court after its verdict on the Panama Papers case was split 3-2 among a five-judge bench, with the two dissenting notes in the judgment authored by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa and Justice Gulzar Ahmed.

The two judges had ruled against Sharif, saying he should be disqualified, whereas the other three were in favour of forming a JIT.

Despite the hype over the JIT and its ongoing investigations, legal and investigation experts feel the report, once it is presented to the court, will simply be the beginning of a long process.

Legal experts feel that the JIT’s report, once it is completed, may lead to further hearings.

FIA team wraps up SECP probe
​

ISLAMABAD: The Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) team probing alleged record tampering by the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) finished its work on Friday after spending over two hours with the IT department of the corporate sector regulator.

The four-member FIA team, headed by Anti-Corruption Wing Director Maqsoodul Hassan, started its investigations after working hours on Friday, June 23, and ended its work on the SECP premises late on Friday, June 30.

After quizzing several SECP executives and holding meetings with the commission’s senior management, the FIA team spent their final hours in the IT department.

There were rumours that certain hardware, including the laptop issued to SECP Chairman Zafar Hijazi, had also been confiscated. However, this impression was denied by a senior SECP official.

A senior SECP executive told Dawn that to ensure the security of data on the whole network, the SECP had several backup servers.

“The software operates from abroad and the data is protected at five levels,” the official said. “The FIA personnel took email records of several executives who were investigated earlier, while the option to delete previous records has been blocked in the emails of many officers.”

The FIA team was established on the directives of the apex court when the JIT alleged that the SECP was involved in record-tampering.

Meanwhile, sources in the FIA said that several proofs of tampering had been collected from the SECP, some of which had even been acknowledged by mid-level and senior officers of the Commission.

“They have all acknowledged that the closing note in the case of the Chaudhry Sugar Mills was penned in 2016 in the office of SECP Chairman Zafar Hijazi retroactively. This may not be a serious crime, but it also proves harassment of employees because they were made to sign it under duress,” the official added.

The closing note was made by Maheen Fatima, the officer assigned to the money laundering case involving the Chaudhry Sugar Mills, while it was signed by Ali Azeem, the head of the enforcement department in 2013.

However, there was no mention of Tahir Mahmood, who was acting SECP chairman in 2013 and is the current commissioner of the Company Law Division, an FIA source said.

“This is contrary to the written reply given by the SECP to the Supreme Court,” the FIA official confided.

The SECP reply stated that SECP chairman Hijazi received a briefing by the officer concerned on the issue, Ms Fatima, in the presence of Commissioner Tahir Mahmood and was informed that the matter had already been concluded and the request letter sent to UK authorities for a probe in the case was withdrawn in 2013.

The SECP response to the Supreme Court further stated that the current chairman was appointed long after the matter was closed by the respective officers.

Meanwhile, sources in the investigation agency confided that the team had unearthed new evidence of record tampering in the documentation of Hudabiya Sugar Mills and other entities owned by the Sharif family.

“But this evidence, which is related to change in the name of directors without following the due procedure, is being scrutinised,” the official said, adding: “These misdeeds are being exposed with the help of moles inside the commission.”

The FIA is likely to finalise and submit its report to the JIT tomorrow (Monday).


SECP closed money laundering investigations against Sugar Mill of Sharifs after PMLN won elections in May 2013! JIT informed by SECP

https://twitter.com/x/status/881390612016017409

 

[Farah Sohail]

The FIA is likely to finalise and submit its report to the JIT tomorrow (Monday).

@bold yeh samajh nahi aaya..why will FIA submit its report to JIT? FIA ko tu SC ne investigate karnay ko kaha tha..allegations pf recprd tampering.. FIA ko tu apni report SC main submit karni chahye.. JIT ko tu record tampering ka pehle se pata hai... Ab tu SC ne investgate karnay ko kaha tha.. Why is FIA not submitting its report to SC.? SC main record tampering prove hogi tu punish honge na culprits... JIT ne bhi SC ko kaha tha ke culprits ko punish karein... Ab FIA..JIT ko report dey kar kia karein ge? @PakSword @QatariPrince

He has already been summoned by JIT on July 6, 2017.

How do u say so? Abhi tak koi summon nahi aaya JIT ka..Ishaq Dar ko... Tv par bhi abhi news nahi hai....Online bhi check kiya... Hosakta hai ke 6th ko bulaa lein.. Lekin abhi tak koi news nahi aayi..Ishaq Dar ki....

 

[PakSword]

@bold yeh samajh nahi aaya..why will FIA submit its report to JIT? FIA ko tu SC ne investigate karnay ko kaha tha..allegations pf recprd tampering.. FIA ko tu apni report SC main submit karni chahye.. JIT ko tu record tampering ka pehle se pata hai... Ab tu SC ne investgate karnay ko kaha tha.. Why is FIA not submitting its report to SC.? SC main record tampering prove hogi tu punish honge na culprits... JIT ne bhi SC ko kaha tha ke culprits ko punish karein... Ab FIA..JIT ko report dey kar kia karein ge? @PakSword @QatariPrince



How do u say so? Abhi tak koi summon nahi aaya JIT ka..Ishaq Dar ko... Tv par bhi abhi news nahi hai....Online bhi check kiya... Hosakta hai ke 6th ko bulaa lein.. Lekin abhi tak koi news nahi aayi..Ishaq Dar ki....

Merey khayal main dono jagah submit karaingay...

 

[Farah Sohail]

Three-member or five-member bench?

The Panama Leaks case is about to reach its much-awaited crescendo.
And for the second time, over the past one hundred days, the entire nation is looking towards the honourable Supreme Court for accountability of the most influential family in Pakistan’s politico-financial paradigm.

This case, in its narrowest sense, is about the disqualification of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.
However, a deeper analysis of the issues involved (especially in regards to the ongoing drama concerning JIT proceedings) would reveal that this case is about much more than simply the disqualification of one individual.
It involves important (even existential) questions about the tenacity of our State, and its institutions, to hold the powerful and the mighty accountable for their private and public conduct.
This case is not simply about Neilsen Enterprises and Nescoll Limited; in equal measure, it is about the National Accountability Bureau and the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan.
It is not simply about Maryam Safdar and Hussain Nawaz; in equal measure, it is about Qamar Zaman and Zafar Hijazi.

Amidst all the chaos concerning JIT proceedings – including alleged threats to JIT members, leaked photograph, whatsapp calls, and SECP record tampering – an important constitutional question seems to have escaped our collective focus: will the final judgment be rendered by this three-member bench, or will it be referred back to the original five-member bench for a decision?

In this regard, if the case is to be (finally) decided by this honourable three-member bench, what will be the consequence of judgments authored by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa and Justice Gulzar Ahmed? Were they of no judicial or consequential value? Let us assume, for a moment, that this three-member bench decides the case in Mr.
Nawaz Sharif’s favor with a 2:1 majority (one honourable member deciding against the Prime Minister), will it not be true (then) that, of the original five members, three have decided against the Sharif family? Should he not then be disqualified?

To this end, it is important to ask: did the five-member bench render its final “judgment” on the 20th of April? Or was “Order of the Court” not the same as its final judgment? Put it another way, did the “Order of the Court” dispose off the petitions in April? Is there anything in the judgment to indicate as such? Or did the court, instead, decide that it will render its final judgment after the JIT proceedings have been completed? Are the JIT proceeding, and the special three-member ‘implementation bench’, merely an extension of the original proceedings? And if so, can this three-member bench render the final verdict? Or will the matter (necessarily) be referred back to original bench for its conclusive “judgment’?

These, and related questions, are of immense consequence for the Panama case.
Because if the final judgment, post-JIT report, is to be rendered by this three-member bench, then at least two honourable judges would have to decide against the Prime Minister for him to be disqualified.
On the other hand, in case the matter is to be referred back to the original five-member bench (two of whom have already decided against the Prime Minister), only more honourable judge can effectuate the Prime Minister’s disqualification.

And, keeping in mind the stakes involved, the question as to whether the judgment is to be rendered by a five or a three-member bench, could well determine the course of governance and democracy for the foreseeable future in Pakistan.

Away from political consequences, in order to answer this critical question of bench formation, it is essential to once again parse through the order of the honourable court, dated 20th of April.

A careful reading of the 547 pages, authored by five honourable judges, would reveal that, in essence, there are only two ‘final’ judgments in the field: one, authored by Justice Asif Khosa (which disqualifies the Prime Minister on merits) and the other by Justice Gulzar Ahmed (which fully agrees with Justice Khosa on the merits of the case, and adds an additional note on the “singular point” concerning the applicability and scope of Article 184(3)).

The other three honourable judges (forming the majority) did not render a ‘final’ judgment.
Instead, they identified and observed the multi-faceted issues that require inquiry, before a final judgment can be announced.
In the words of Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan, “regrettably, most material questions have remained unanswered or answered insufficiently by [Prime Minister] and his children.
” As a result, the “Order of the Court”, declares that there are numerous questions that “go to the heart of the matter and need to be answered”, for which a JIT has been constituted.
The Order also directs the JIT to “submit its periodical reports every two weeks”, and final report within sixty days, before a special bench (of three-members) constituted to “ensure implementation” of the Order.
And only after the final JIT report has been completed, under the auspices of the special implementation bench, will the court pass its definitive orders/directions.

In other words, having observed “patently contradictory statements” of the PM and his family, and that “no effort has been made to provide even the basic answers” (Justice Ahsan), the majority decided that “investigation appears to be necessary before we can proceed further in the matter” (Justice S.
Azmat Saeed).
To make matters clearer, Justice Azmat Saeed observes that, once the JIT furnishes its report, “this court will examine the matter of disqualification of [PM]”.

This (five-member) court.
Not a sub-set of it.

And for this reason, the majority judges did not “dispose off” the case, as is customary whenever a final judgment has been rendered.

In light of the above, it is perhaps erroneous to assume that the “implementation” bench can pass a final judgment by itself, instead of the original (five-member) bench.

Unfortunately, there is no real precedent for this in the recent jurisprudence of our superior courts.
A comparison with the NRO case, in which an “implementation” bench had been constituted to oversee the carrying out of Court’s directions, is also inaccurate.
Importantly, in the NRO judgment, no aspect of the case required further “investigation”, before a judgment of the court could be rendered.
The judgment (of all concerned judges) was final and declarative.
It merely needed to be implemented.

In the Panama case, on the other hand, three of the five honourable judges of the bench have yet to render their final decision.
And even if one of the (undecided) judges holds the Prime Minister guilty, Justice Asif Khosa and Gulzar Ahmed will immediately find themselves in the majority.

These are challenges times for our polity, our State institutions, and the honourable Court.
Panama case has exposed the caustic nature of our politics (re: Nihal Hashmi), and the feeble state of our institutions (re: Qamar Zaman and Zafar Hjiazi).
The honourable Court, however, must stay clear of all such passions and prejudices.
As it has, so far.

Entering into the final stages of this politico-legal saga, it is important that we adhere to the constitutional requirements and procedures, which form the bedrock of our teetering democracy.
As such, the five-member bench, which heard the Panama case at length, must render the final judgment.
Whatever that judgment might be.
Because the last thing that we, as a people, can afford at this stage, is a controversy concerning why a (majority of?) three-member bench determined the fate of Panama case, and why the judgments rendered by Justice Khosa and Justice Gulzar were not counted towards the outcome.

The writer is a lawyer based in Lahore.
He has a Masters in Constitutional Law from Harvard Law School.

Merey khayal main dono jagah submit karaingay...

Hona tu yehi chahye... SC main FIA ko directly report submit karna, must hai... Beshak uski copy JIT ko bhi de dein

 

[PakSword]

Three-member or five-member bench?

The Panama Leaks case is about to reach its much-awaited crescendo.
And for the second time, over the past one hundred days, the entire nation is looking towards the honourable Supreme Court for accountability of the most influential family in Pakistan’s politico-financial paradigm.

This case, in its narrowest sense, is about the disqualification of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.
However, a deeper analysis of the issues involved (especially in regards to the ongoing drama concerning JIT proceedings) would reveal that this case is about much more than simply the disqualification of one individual.
It involves important (even existential) questions about the tenacity of our State, and its institutions, to hold the powerful and the mighty accountable for their private and public conduct.
This case is not simply about Neilsen Enterprises and Nescoll Limited; in equal measure, it is about the National Accountability Bureau and the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan.
It is not simply about Maryam Safdar and Hussain Nawaz; in equal measure, it is about Qamar Zaman and Zafar Hijazi.

Amidst all the chaos concerning JIT proceedings – including alleged threats to JIT members, leaked photograph, whatsapp calls, and SECP record tampering – an important constitutional question seems to have escaped our collective focus: will the final judgment be rendered by this three-member bench, or will it be referred back to the original five-member bench for a decision?

In this regard, if the case is to be (finally) decided by this honourable three-member bench, what will be the consequence of judgments authored by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa and Justice Gulzar Ahmed? Were they of no judicial or consequential value? Let us assume, for a moment, that this three-member bench decides the case in Mr.
Nawaz Sharif’s favor with a 2:1 majority (one honourable member deciding against the Prime Minister), will it not be true (then) that, of the original five members, three have decided against the Sharif family? Should he not then be disqualified?

To this end, it is important to ask: did the five-member bench render its final “judgment” on the 20th of April? Or was “Order of the Court” not the same as its final judgment? Put it another way, did the “Order of the Court” dispose off the petitions in April? Is there anything in the judgment to indicate as such? Or did the court, instead, decide that it will render its final judgment after the JIT proceedings have been completed? Are the JIT proceeding, and the special three-member ‘implementation bench’, merely an extension of the original proceedings? And if so, can this three-member bench render the final verdict? Or will the matter (necessarily) be referred back to original bench for its conclusive “judgment’?

These, and related questions, are of immense consequence for the Panama case.
Because if the final judgment, post-JIT report, is to be rendered by this three-member bench, then at least two honourable judges would have to decide against the Prime Minister for him to be disqualified.
On the other hand, in case the matter is to be referred back to the original five-member bench (two of whom have already decided against the Prime Minister), only more honourable judge can effectuate the Prime Minister’s disqualification.

And, keeping in mind the stakes involved, the question as to whether the judgment is to be rendered by a five or a three-member bench, could well determine the course of governance and democracy for the foreseeable future in Pakistan.

Away from political consequences, in order to answer this critical question of bench formation, it is essential to once again parse through the order of the honourable court, dated 20th of April.

A careful reading of the 547 pages, authored by five honourable judges, would reveal that, in essence, there are only two ‘final’ judgments in the field: one, authored by Justice Asif Khosa (which disqualifies the Prime Minister on merits) and the other by Justice Gulzar Ahmed (which fully agrees with Justice Khosa on the merits of the case, and adds an additional note on the “singular point” concerning the applicability and scope of Article 184(3)).

The other three honourable judges (forming the majority) did not render a ‘final’ judgment.
Instead, they identified and observed the multi-faceted issues that require inquiry, before a final judgment can be announced.
In the words of Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan, “regrettably, most material questions have remained unanswered or answered insufficiently by [Prime Minister] and his children.
” As a result, the “Order of the Court”, declares that there are numerous questions that “go to the heart of the matter and need to be answered”, for which a JIT has been constituted.
The Order also directs the JIT to “submit its periodical reports every two weeks”, and final report within sixty days, before a special bench (of three-members) constituted to “ensure implementation” of the Order.
And only after the final JIT report has been completed, under the auspices of the special implementation bench, will the court pass its definitive orders/directions.

In other words, having observed “patently contradictory statements” of the PM and his family, and that “no effort has been made to provide even the basic answers” (Justice Ahsan), the majority decided that “investigation appears to be necessary before we can proceed further in the matter” (Justice S.
Azmat Saeed).
To make matters clearer, Justice Azmat Saeed observes that, once the JIT furnishes its report, “this court will examine the matter of disqualification of [PM]”.

This (five-member) court.
Not a sub-set of it.

And for this reason, the majority judges did not “dispose off” the case, as is customary whenever a final judgment has been rendered.

In light of the above, it is perhaps erroneous to assume that the “implementation” bench can pass a final judgment by itself, instead of the original (five-member) bench.

Unfortunately, there is no real precedent for this in the recent jurisprudence of our superior courts.
A comparison with the NRO case, in which an “implementation” bench had been constituted to oversee the carrying out of Court’s directions, is also inaccurate.
Importantly, in the NRO judgment, no aspect of the case required further “investigation”, before a judgment of the court could be rendered.
The judgment (of all concerned judges) was final and declarative.
It merely needed to be implemented.

In the Panama case, on the other hand, three of the five honourable judges of the bench have yet to render their final decision.
And even if one of the (undecided) judges holds the Prime Minister guilty, Justice Asif Khosa and Gulzar Ahmed will immediately find themselves in the majority.

These are challenges times for our polity, our State institutions, and the honourable Court.
Panama case has exposed the caustic nature of our politics (re: Nihal Hashmi), and the feeble state of our institutions (re: Qamar Zaman and Zafar Hjiazi).
The honourable Court, however, must stay clear of all such passions and prejudices.
As it has, so far.

Entering into the final stages of this politico-legal saga, it is important that we adhere to the constitutional requirements and procedures, which form the bedrock of our teetering democracy.
As such, the five-member bench, which heard the Panama case at length, must render the final judgment.
Whatever that judgment might be.
Because the last thing that we, as a people, can afford at this stage, is a controversy concerning why a (majority of?) three-member bench determined the fate of Panama case, and why the judgments rendered by Justice Khosa and Justice Gulzar were not counted towards the outcome.

The writer is a lawyer based in Lahore.
He has a Masters in Constitutional Law from Harvard Law School.




Hona tu yehi chahye... SC main FIA ko directly report submit karna, must hai... Beshak uski copy JIT ko bhi de dein

SECP Director Maheen Fatima is saying that she was forced to close Ch. Sugar Mills investigation on backdate, but it can't be called record tempering...

She is right by the way, it is not tempering technically..

 

[Farah Sohail]

SECP Director Maheen Fatima is saying that she was forced to close Ch. Sugar Mills investigation on backdate, but it can't be called record tempering...

She is right by the way, it is not tempering technically..

How is it not record tampering?

 

[PakSword]

How is it not record tampering?

No record has been tempered..

 

[Farah Sohail]

​

Meanwhile, sources in the FIA said that several proofs of tampering had been collected from the SECP, some of which had even been acknowledged by mid-level and senior officers of the Commission.

“They have all acknowledged that the closing note in the case of the Chaudhry Sugar Mills was penned in 2016 in the office of SECP Chairman Zafar Hijazi retroactively. This may not be a serious crime, but it also proves harassment of employees because they were made to sign it under duress,” the official added.

The closing note was made by Maheen Fatima, the officer assigned to the money laundering case involving the Chaudhry Sugar Mills, while it was signed by Ali Azeem, the head of the enforcement department in 2013.

However, there was no mention of Tahir Mahmood, who was acting SECP chairman in 2013 and is the current commissioner of the Company Law Division, an FIA source said.

“This is contrary to the written reply given by the SECP to the Supreme Court,” the FIA official confided.

Meanwhile, sources in the investigation agency confided that the team had unearthed new evidence of record tampering in the documentation of Hudabiya Sugar Mills and other entities owned by the Sharif family.

“But this evidence, which is related to change in the name of directors without following the due procedure, is being scrutinised,” the official said, adding: “These misdeeds are being exposed with the help of moles inside the commission.”

The FIA is likely to finalise and submit its report to the JIT tomorrow (Monday).

@PakSword Above paragraphs show tht new evidences of record tampering have also been unearthed..by FIA...... See the lines in bold

 

[PakSword]

@PakSword Above paragraphs show tht new evidences of record tampering have also been unearthed..by FIA...... See the lines in bold

Hmm.

New tempering evidences may be helpful against Nawaz.

 

[Farah Sohail]

Hmm.

New tempering evidences may be helpful against Nawaz.

FIA tu chaa gayi!!!

Dosri taraf... THe news walon ki harkatein dekhein.. Ye bhi nahi sudhar rahay

Who’s drafting Panama JIT reports?

ISLAMABAD: A source related to banking, who has close association with one of the members of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) probing the Panama Papers case, confirmed to this scribe that majority of the JIT members were not even given the time to go through the documents which were being submitted before the apex court by the JIT and they were only asked to sign them at the eleventh hour.

Not only this, documentary evidence and two latest proof surfaced have shown beyond an iota of doubt that even the controversial complaint filed by the JIT regarding obstructions being created in its functioning was not even read by the JIT members and they were made to sign it before its submission to the apex court. Nobody knows who drafted this for submission before the Supreme Court and made members of the JIT to sign it.

In its complaint before the apex court, the ‘JIT’ alleged that Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) chairman ordered closure of an investigation into money laundering allegations against the Chaudhry Sugar Mills owned by the Sharif family. The ‘JIT’ complaint also alleged, c. “It is respectfully pointed out that the orders of the Chairman SECP to tamper the record and close Chaudhry Sugar Mills investigation of money laundering in back date, was executed by one Mr Ali Azeem Ikram, Executive Director, SECP. Incidentally, the said Ali Azeem Ikram was initially nominated by the SECP’ chairman so as to be a member of the present JIT. It seems that the nomination of said Mr Ali Azeem Ikram to be a member of the present JIT by the Chairman SECP had been made with a clear intent to subvert the investigation of the JIT.

“d. In the above context, one can now appreciate as to the backdrop in which the ‘WhatsApp call controversy’ was stirred at the behest of the Chairman SECP, attempting to unmeritedly drag the learned Registrar of this honourable court, when in actuality the learned Registrar, on his own volition, had no role in the matter.”

Now the investigation conducted by The News reveals that official record of SECP proves that it was not the SECP chairman but the whole commission which approved a list of officers for nomination in the JIT. The SECP was ordered by the Supreme Court to recommend three names for the JIT. One out of these three nominees was to be picked by the judges.

Interestingly, the first three names from the list approved by whole SECP commission and sent to the SC didn’t contain the name of the SECP officer “Ali Azeem Ikram”. More interesting is the fact that Bilal Rasul, who finally made his way to the JIT after WhatsApp call, was secretary to SECP. The official SECP record proves that in his capacity as secretary to the commission, Bilal Rasul, not only drafted the minutes of the meeting of the whole commission of SECP which approved the list of officers to be nominated for JIT but also signed the same minutes. The minutes of the said meeting with signatures of Bilal Rasul was also submitted to the Supreme Court.

The JIT complaint, signed by all the six members of the JIT, including Bilal Rasul, clearly alleged that Ali Azeem Ikram was initial nominee of the SECP chairman. Whereas the SECP correspondence with the apex court, still present in the SC record and can be examined by the honourable judges in the Implementation Bench, was sent with signatures of Bilal Rasul and never carried the name of Ali Azeem Ikram among the first three.

More interestingly, this issue of SECP is discussed on the very first page of the second of the JIT complaint filed with the apex court on June 12. This clearly shows that majority of the JIT members were not allowed to read even the first page of the JIT complaint and were only made to sign on Page-8.

This is a different story that later on Registrar’s Office of the SC wrote to the SECP to recommend two more names and someone called the SECP chairman using official landline number of the Office of the Registrar and advised the SECP chairman to attend a WhatsApp call. Later, the chairman received a call on Facetime, a mobile application, to receive secure and secret calls, and was asked to nominate Bilal Rasul for the JIT. The Facetime caller introduced himself as the Registrar Supreme Court of Pakistan. The name of Ali Azeem Ikram was at serial number 4 in the list of officers approved by the commission of SECP and name of one Yasir Manzoor was at serial number 5. As through official SC letter two more names were required, so as per the approval of the commission these two next names in the approved list were sent to the apex court while ignoring the secret WhatsApp call. The minutes of the meeting of the commission of SECP signed by Bilal Rasul were followed in letter and spirit.

The official record proves beyond any doubt that the initial recommendations from the SECP never contained the name of Ali Azeem Ikram as claimed in the JIT complaint and signed by Bilal Rasul.

The sources said that the JIT allegation that the SECP chairman ordered the closure of money laundering investigations in 2016 with the back date of 2013 has also been proved wrong as all those who submitted their statements before the Federal Investigation Authority (FIA) have admitted the basic fact that the investigations were closed in 2013. The sources said, and The News verified from the official record, that even those who are making allegations against the SECP chairman regarding putting a note on a file also admitted in their written statements that the investigation was closed back in 2013. The sources said that after proper closure of the investigation in 2013, not putting a note on the main file was a lapse on the part of some SECP officers and they put the back date to save their own skin and now making the allegation against the chairman. The SECP sources said that as the investigations were properly closed after submission of all required information by the Chaudhry Sugar Mills in 2013, putting a factually correct note on the file would have been no problem if the officers would have put the correct date of June 2016 when they were doing so. But they put the date of 2013 to correct their own mistake. The sources said that money laundering investigations were not even within the scope of the SECP and if someone has proof that money laundering was committed, he should come forward and conduct fresh investigations and punish whosoever is guilty.

The sources said that in the present case, it has been proved, and all the concerned officials agree, that there was no case of money laundering after detailed response from the Chaudhry Sugar Mills submitted along with all the evidences of export receipts from Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, etc. Sources add that as far as the Panama case is concerned, one should be concerned with the money laundering allegation not with what happened within the SECP. If someone believes that money laundering was done, he should order impartial investigations into it. The sources asked as to how a lapse by some officials in the SECP can be made part of the whole episode, completely ignoring what the money laundering case was.

The second instance that proves the JIT is irrelevant to its reports submitted before the apex court is about the issue of leakage of the picture of Hussain Nawaz. For many, the leakage of the picture is not important but this very fact will be crucially important to them. The picture was leaked to the media and social media on June 4. On June 7, Hussain Nawaz moved an application before the SC to set up a commission to probe the leakage of his picture to humiliate him and his family prior to the appearance of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif before the JIT.

On the day of filing Hussain’s application, the Implementation Bench questioned the JIT members about picture leakage issue in the courtroom and later ordered them to submit a reply/report on the issue. On June 12, the JIT submitted its response to the Hussain’s application. This June 12 JIT response declared that after leakage of Hussain picture on June 4, the JIT started investigation on its own, identified the culprit, sent him back to his department and that the said “department” has also punished the said culprit. This June 12 response of the JIT to Hussain’s application also added another sentence according to which not only that this whole internal investigation of JIT into Hussain’s picture leakage issue was completed in a short time but also a report detailing all these findings and actions taken was submitted before the Implementation Bench of the SC within “24 hours and before even the filing of the application by Hussain Nawaz”.

It is important to mention that all the six JIT members had attended all the hearings of the Supreme Court till then, including the most important and crucial hearing of June 7 during which the judges asked the JIT to file a response to Hussain’s application. Had the complaint, filed by the JIT on June 12 and signed by all the six members, prepared or read by the JIT members, they must have deleted the crucial sentence that the JIT has submitted its report to the Implementation Bench within 24 hours of the leakage and before even the filing of the application by Hussain Nawaz.

The person who prepared the complaint was unaware of the developments that took place in the courtroom on June 7 so wrote this sentence and the JIT members, who were not able to read even the first page, simply signed it.


https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/213899-Whos-drafting-JIT-reports

 

[PakSword]

FIA tu chaa gayi!!!

Dosri taraf... THe news walon ki harkatein dekhein.. Ye bhi nahi sudhar rahay

Who’s drafting Panama JIT reports?

ISLAMABAD: A source related to banking, who has close association with one of the members of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) probing the Panama Papers case, confirmed to this scribe that majority of the JIT members were not even given the time to go through the documents which were being submitted before the apex court by the JIT and they were only asked to sign them at the eleventh hour.

Not only this, documentary evidence and two latest proof surfaced have shown beyond an iota of doubt that even the controversial complaint filed by the JIT regarding obstructions being created in its functioning was not even read by the JIT members and they were made to sign it before its submission to the apex court. Nobody knows who drafted this for submission before the Supreme Court and made members of the JIT to sign it.

In its complaint before the apex court, the ‘JIT’ alleged that Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) chairman ordered closure of an investigation into money laundering allegations against the Chaudhry Sugar Mills owned by the Sharif family. The ‘JIT’ complaint also alleged, c. “It is respectfully pointed out that the orders of the Chairman SECP to tamper the record and close Chaudhry Sugar Mills investigation of money laundering in back date, was executed by one Mr Ali Azeem Ikram, Executive Director, SECP. Incidentally, the said Ali Azeem Ikram was initially nominated by the SECP’ chairman so as to be a member of the present JIT. It seems that the nomination of said Mr Ali Azeem Ikram to be a member of the present JIT by the Chairman SECP had been made with a clear intent to subvert the investigation of the JIT.

“d. In the above context, one can now appreciate as to the backdrop in which the ‘WhatsApp call controversy’ was stirred at the behest of the Chairman SECP, attempting to unmeritedly drag the learned Registrar of this honourable court, when in actuality the learned Registrar, on his own volition, had no role in the matter.”

Now the investigation conducted by The News reveals that official record of SECP proves that it was not the SECP chairman but the whole commission which approved a list of officers for nomination in the JIT. The SECP was ordered by the Supreme Court to recommend three names for the JIT. One out of these three nominees was to be picked by the judges.

Interestingly, the first three names from the list approved by whole SECP commission and sent to the SC didn’t contain the name of the SECP officer “Ali Azeem Ikram”. More interesting is the fact that Bilal Rasul, who finally made his way to the JIT after WhatsApp call, was secretary to SECP. The official SECP record proves that in his capacity as secretary to the commission, Bilal Rasul, not only drafted the minutes of the meeting of the whole commission of SECP which approved the list of officers to be nominated for JIT but also signed the same minutes. The minutes of the said meeting with signatures of Bilal Rasul was also submitted to the Supreme Court.

The JIT complaint, signed by all the six members of the JIT, including Bilal Rasul, clearly alleged that Ali Azeem Ikram was initial nominee of the SECP chairman. Whereas the SECP correspondence with the apex court, still present in the SC record and can be examined by the honourable judges in the Implementation Bench, was sent with signatures of Bilal Rasul and never carried the name of Ali Azeem Ikram among the first three.

More interestingly, this issue of SECP is discussed on the very first page of the second of the JIT complaint filed with the apex court on June 12. This clearly shows that majority of the JIT members were not allowed to read even the first page of the JIT complaint and were only made to sign on Page-8.

This is a different story that later on Registrar’s Office of the SC wrote to the SECP to recommend two more names and someone called the SECP chairman using official landline number of the Office of the Registrar and advised the SECP chairman to attend a WhatsApp call. Later, the chairman received a call on Facetime, a mobile application, to receive secure and secret calls, and was asked to nominate Bilal Rasul for the JIT. The Facetime caller introduced himself as the Registrar Supreme Court of Pakistan. The name of Ali Azeem Ikram was at serial number 4 in the list of officers approved by the commission of SECP and name of one Yasir Manzoor was at serial number 5. As through official SC letter two more names were required, so as per the approval of the commission these two next names in the approved list were sent to the apex court while ignoring the secret WhatsApp call. The minutes of the meeting of the commission of SECP signed by Bilal Rasul were followed in letter and spirit.

The official record proves beyond any doubt that the initial recommendations from the SECP never contained the name of Ali Azeem Ikram as claimed in the JIT complaint and signed by Bilal Rasul.

The sources said that the JIT allegation that the SECP chairman ordered the closure of money laundering investigations in 2016 with the back date of 2013 has also been proved wrong as all those who submitted their statements before the Federal Investigation Authority (FIA) have admitted the basic fact that the investigations were closed in 2013. The sources said, and The News verified from the official record, that even those who are making allegations against the SECP chairman regarding putting a note on a file also admitted in their written statements that the investigation was closed back in 2013. The sources said that after proper closure of the investigation in 2013, not putting a note on the main file was a lapse on the part of some SECP officers and they put the back date to save their own skin and now making the allegation against the chairman. The SECP sources said that as the investigations were properly closed after submission of all required information by the Chaudhry Sugar Mills in 2013, putting a factually correct note on the file would have been no problem if the officers would have put the correct date of June 2016 when they were doing so. But they put the date of 2013 to correct their own mistake. The sources said that money laundering investigations were not even within the scope of the SECP and if someone has proof that money laundering was committed, he should come forward and conduct fresh investigations and punish whosoever is guilty.

The sources said that in the present case, it has been proved, and all the concerned officials agree, that there was no case of money laundering after detailed response from the Chaudhry Sugar Mills submitted along with all the evidences of export receipts from Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, etc. Sources add that as far as the Panama case is concerned, one should be concerned with the money laundering allegation not with what happened within the SECP. If someone believes that money laundering was done, he should order impartial investigations into it. The sources asked as to how a lapse by some officials in the SECP can be made part of the whole episode, completely ignoring what the money laundering case was.

The second instance that proves the JIT is irrelevant to its reports submitted before the apex court is about the issue of leakage of the picture of Hussain Nawaz. For many, the leakage of the picture is not important but this very fact will be crucially important to them. The picture was leaked to the media and social media on June 4. On June 7, Hussain Nawaz moved an application before the SC to set up a commission to probe the leakage of his picture to humiliate him and his family prior to the appearance of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif before the JIT.

On the day of filing Hussain’s application, the Implementation Bench questioned the JIT members about picture leakage issue in the courtroom and later ordered them to submit a reply/report on the issue. On June 12, the JIT submitted its response to the Hussain’s application. This June 12 JIT response declared that after leakage of Hussain picture on June 4, the JIT started investigation on its own, identified the culprit, sent him back to his department and that the said “department” has also punished the said culprit. This June 12 response of the JIT to Hussain’s application also added another sentence according to which not only that this whole internal investigation of JIT into Hussain’s picture leakage issue was completed in a short time but also a report detailing all these findings and actions taken was submitted before the Implementation Bench of the SC within “24 hours and before even the filing of the application by Hussain Nawaz”.

It is important to mention that all the six JIT members had attended all the hearings of the Supreme Court till then, including the most important and crucial hearing of June 7 during which the judges asked the JIT to file a response to Hussain’s application. Had the complaint, filed by the JIT on June 12 and signed by all the six members, prepared or read by the JIT members, they must have deleted the crucial sentence that the JIT has submitted its report to the Implementation Bench within 24 hours of the leakage and before even the filing of the application by Hussain Nawaz.

The person who prepared the complaint was unaware of the developments that took place in the courtroom on June 7 so wrote this sentence and the JIT members, who were not able to read even the first page, simply signed it.


https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/213899-Whos-drafting-JIT-reports

Yeh tou kuchh bhi nahi.. inn ke akhbaar ka pehlay page check karain..

"Ahem Khabron" ke section main pehli khabar check karain zara @Farah Sohail

 

[QatariPrince]

اسلام آباد: طارق شفیع سے جے آئی ٹی کی تحقیقات مکمل
اسلام آباد: طارق شفیع تین گھنٹے فیڈرل جوڈیشل اکیڈمی میں رہے
اسلام آباد: طارق شفیع فیڈرل جوڈیشل اکیڈمی سے روانہ
​

میں نے تمام سوالات کے جواب دے آیا، طارق شفیع
گلف اسٹیل کے بارے میں سوال پوچھا گیا، طارق شفیع
دوبارہ پیشی کا فی الحال نہیں بتایا گیا، طارق شفیع
گلف اسٹیل کے بنانے اور اسکے لیے جانے والے فنڈز سے متعلق بھی بتایا، طارق شفیع
جے آئی ٹی کو کوئی دستاویزات نہیں دیے، طارق شفیع




​

 

[Farah Sohail]

Yeh tou kuchh bhi nahi.. inn ke akhbaar ka pehlay page check karain..

"Ahem Khabron" ke section main pehli khabar check karain zara @Farah Sohail

Achw...woh news dekhi..tht SECP chairman has written to DG FIA..complaining regd FIA team, tht FIA team is crossing limits by including son in probe? Jo bhi JIT ya FIa team se ho kar aata hai..fauran complaints shuru hojati hain I am loving it !!!!

 

[PakSword]

Achw...woh news dekhi..tht SECP chairman has written to DG FIA..complaining regd FIA team, tht FIA team is crossing limits by including son in probe? Jo bhi JIT ya FIa team se ho kar aata hai..fauran complaints shuru hojati hain I am loving it !!!!

Where is that news item?

Ohh,, you were referring to the picture I posted.. I have found it..

 

[Farah Sohail]

Where is that news item?

Ohh,, you were referring to the picture I posted.. I have found it..

https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/213904-FIA-crossing-limits-by-including-son-in-probe-SECP-chairman

Sab ki cheekhein nikal rahi hain Main Ishaq Dar ki cheekhein bhi sunna chahti hoon ..lekin uski baari hi nahi aarahi..filhal .. Hopefully jaldi aajayegi Ishaq Dar ki bhi baari