Panama Leaks: SC observes it is being swamped with petitions everyday

[PakSword]

If Qatar statement corroborates with the claim, then that is it. You have to remember that the accused party is not guilty to begin with. The accused party is innocent until proven guilty.

And our AML laws also refer to ACCUSED not GUILTY. Accused party has to bring proof of innocence. Period.

 

[Emmie]

Exactly, what if we both declare that we sold the properties to Nawaz Sharif in 1993 against certain cash payment.. Our statement should be checked out as well.

IK should also produce a letter stating someone was told by someone's uncle in 1995 that NS signed sale deeds of the flats ( 16a, 16b,17a,17b, in front of someone's deceased uncle who happened to be langotiya yar of deceased Abbas Sharif.

 

[Finer]

Bhai, today the statement that was read out in front of the court was intangible, that too by one judge. Three other judges already said that there are contradictions in Qatari letter and PMs statement on the floor.

Contradiction on the statements of individuals, not on Qatar recommendation. Pay attention to the words.

And our AML laws also refer to ACCUSED not GUILTY. Accused party has to bring proof of innocence. Period.

So the accused party has to prove their innocent given they are innocent to begin with until proven guilty which is yet to occur?

 

[PakSword]

Contradiction on the statements of individuals, not on Qatar recommendation. Pay attention to the words.



So the accused party has to prove their innocent given they are innocent to begin with until proven guilty which is yet to occur?

Ohh please not again... Don't use the name of country.

And yes, this is what the law says. It is an inquiry on money laundering. Are you a lawyer? If you are not, please listen to the below interview of Aitzaz Ahsan:

http://www.siasat.pk/forum/showthre...z-Sharif-there-are-other-way-too-Aitzaz-Ahsan

 

[Finer]

This would also mean the letter I am bearing is forged one, you know that even the court knows that. Hell, even evidence act 1984 declares my letter not admissible. Poor you, can't catch me.

How do i or the court for that matter know your letter is forged one? Until you confess, no one is certain that you have forged letter.

Ohh please not again... Don't use the name of country.

And yes, this is what the law says. It is an inquiry on money laundering. Are you a lawyer? If you are not, please listen to the below interview of Aitzaz Ahsan:

http://www.siasat.pk/forum/showthre...z-Sharif-there-are-other-way-too-Aitzaz-Ahsan

I am reading on AML right now. It is mostly applied for the official officers. Without the report from the official investigation, third-party statement is enough to suffice then - aka Qatar.

Even then for the official investigation, they have to operate within the compliant of the system.

 

[Emmie]

How do i or the court for that matter know your letter is forged one? Until you confess, no one is certain that you have forged letter.

But you just said you could not go to the court because you knew you wouldn't be able to validate your claim, didn't you?

 

[Finer]

But you just said you could not go to the court because you knew you wouldn't be able to validate your claim, didn't you?

Why would i go to the court if i don't have evidence or certain whether you carry forget letter or not? Unless i go to the court to make fool of myself.

 

[PakSword]

Even then for the official investigation, they have to operate within the compliant of the system.

And what if the court gives a remark that the investigation institutions have become non-functional? Actually court is doing a inquiry right now... Because your PM owned institutions (NAB and FIA) didn't investigate..

Anyway, I suggest you listen to Aitzaz.. It's a two minute clip.

 

[Finer]

And what if the court gives a remark that the investigation institutions have become non-functional? Actually court is doing a inquiry right now... Because your PM owned institutions (NAB and FIA) didn't investigate..

Anyway, I suggest you listen to Aitzaz.. It's a two minute clip.

So assumption is the next factor to be used then?

 

[PakSword]

So assumption is the next factor to be used then?

Sorry my bad, I wanted to write that court gave remarks yesterday that the institutions have become non-functional. It was not an assumption, but an actual statement by SC.

 

[Emmie]

Why would i go to the court if i don't have evidence or certain whether you carry forget letter or not? Unless i go to the court to make fool of myself.

But unlike you PTI would go to the court and the court would also know that both the Qatari prince and NS are pathological liars. There are plenty of reasons, for example prince in forged letter while contradicting Hussain and NS claims that two offshore companies were purchased from the sale proceeds of real estate business and the bearer shares were kept in Qatar. Reason being the letter says prince owned companies and flats registered in ownership of same companies, how can Sharifs obtain mortgage loan for Hudabiya paper mills in London by using same properties as collateral! Famous Al Tawheed investment company case, if you remember?

 

[Finer]

Sorry my bad, I wanted to write that court gave remarks yesterday that the institutions have become non-functional. It was not an assumption, but an actual statement by SC.

Okay. Got it.

 

[PakSword]

But unlike you PTI would go to the court and the court would also know that both the Qatari prince and NS are pathological liars. There are plenty of reasons, for example prince in forged letter while contradicting Hussain and NS claims that two offshore companies were purchased from the sale proceeds of real estate business and the bearer shares were kept in Qatar. Reason being the letter says prince owned companies and flats registered in ownership of same companies, how can Sharifs obtain mortgage loan for Hudabiya paper mills in London by using same properties as collateral! Famous Al Tawheed investment company case, if you remember?

I mentioned that same to him. @Fallen King Sir ji, yesterday was a bad day for PTI lawyers as a lot of time has been wasted. But it doesn't mean that they have lost any ground. Hamads statement will be blown away the moment it is cross examined with contradictory evidences available with PTI.

And guess what, the judgement is rather easy to to validate, unlike bank accounts and property documents.

Just tell me, what other defenses PMLN can bring, once Hamad's statement is gone?

 

[Finer]

But unlike you PTI would go to the court and the court would also know that both the Qatari prince and NS are pathological liars. There are plenty of reasons, for example prince in forged letter while contradicting Hussain and NS claims that two offshore companies were purchased from the sale proceeds of real estate business and the bearer shares were kept in Qatar. Reason being the letter says prince owned companies and flats registered in ownership of same companies, how can Sharifs obtain mortgage loan for Hudabiya paper mills in London by using same properties as collateral! Famous Al Tawheed investment company case, if you remember?

Aside from the emotional rhetoric, can you prove it? That is the whole point of the case. Just prove it.

 

[Emmie]

Aside from the emotional rhetoric, can you prove it? That is the whole point of the case. Just prove it.

Prince letter

Judgement/Decree 1999

I mentioned that same to him. @Fallen King Sir ji, yesterday was a bad day for PTI lawyers as a lot of time has been wasted. But it doesn't mean that they have lost any ground. Hamads statement will be blown away the moment it is cross examined with contradictory evidences available with PTI.

And guess what, the judgement is rather easy to to validate, unlike bank accounts and property documents.

Just tell me, what other defenses PMLN can bring, once Hamad's statement is gone?

Yes decree can be validated, Sharifs can show shenanigans but can't deny the fact which outrightly rejects prince statement.

More possible defense can be similar letters with similar contents, they can't backtrack from their stance they have taken in the court.