Question about money trail of Tareen trust similar to Panama case: CJ
 

ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan Mian Saqib Nisar on Wednesday observed that the question about money trail of Jehangir Tareen’s trust was similar to the question raised in Panama Papers case.

The chief justice said the real issue in Panama Papers case was that of money trail as to how the properties were purchased and from where the money was sent to purchase those properties, but in Jehangir Tareen’s case, the money trail is available and he legally transferred the money abroad for establishing a trust.

The Supreme Court questioned how a person could be disqualified for not disclosing his property of which he was not a beneficial owner.

A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, resumed the hearing into petition of the PML-N leader Hanif Abbasi seeking disqualification of the PTI MNA Jehangir Tareen, as well as PTI chief Imran Imran Khan, as members of the National Assembly over allegations of concealing their sources of income.

Counsels for the parties in the matter concluded their arguments in rebuttal, whereas the court directed counsels for both the parties to submit their written formulations so that the case may be decided at the earliest.

The chief justice ruled that they have not yet through about the verdict of the petitions, seeking disqualification of Imran Khan and Jehangir Tareen but will decide the matter in accordance with law and in the light of written formulations to be submitted by the parties in the instant case.

During the hearing, Justice Saqib Nisar asked Azid Nafees, counsel of Hanif Abbasi, to pinpoint a law under which disclosing of a trust was mandatory. The chief justice observed that the settler of a trust cannot become its owner and when he was not the owner then how he could be disqualified for not disclosing it in the nomination papers.

Justice Umer Ata Bandyal observed that in Panama case judgment, two of the judges were of the view that violation of law is mandatory for disqualification and nobody could be disqualified on the basis of morality.

Azid Nafees contended that Jehangir Tareen had submitted in his reply that he was not a beneficial owner of the said trust while the trust deed clearly demonstrates that the settler along with his spouse is a lifetime discretionary beneficiary of the trust. He said the respondent was required to show it in the nomination papers as required under section 12(2)(f) of the Representation of People Act (ROPA) 1976.

Sikandar Bashir Mohmand, counsel for Jehangir Tareen, submitted that there was no column available on the nomination form that asks for mentioning the beneficiary.

Azid Nafees said the respondent had adopted different stances in the nomination papers regarding his agriculture income.

The CJ asked the learned counsel whether the Punjab Agriculture Tax Department had taken any action over filing low tax in the matter, to which the counsel submitted that the documents submitted by the respondent regarding leased land were bogus as he said that the respondent had said that he made payment to the owners of the leased land and then he said that payments were made to the elders of the people who had provided him the land on lease.

The Chief Justice observed that the court was looking into documents submitted before it as to whether there was any question of dishonesty in it or not. Azid Nafees contended that it is the court to look into the conduct of an honest man. The Chief Justice however observed that the question before the court is that as to whether Jehangir Tareen was required to show the trust in the nomination papers, adding that the court is going to examine honesty in the instant case. The CJ said Tareen accepts establishment of the trust and also had accepted transferring of money to the said trust legally and according to the trust deed, he was the lifetime discretionary beneficiary of the said trust. “Now the legal question arises as to whether he should have disclosed it in the nomination papers or not,” the chief justice said.

Azid Nafees said that the court should look into the manner that the tactics used by Jehangir Tareen implies any dishonesty.

The chief justice said that it is yet to be established that the money sent to the trust was the asset of Tareen, observing that concealing the receivable salary in the Panama case led to disqualification but the court first established the receivable salary as an asset.

Azid Nafees contended that in the Panama case, the court did not go in-depth of the matter of the receivable salary but decided on the matter of Sadiq and Ameen. He said that now in this instant case, the court will have to look into a conduct of a person, not intention.

The counsel submitted that the respondent earned millions of rupees in shares through secret information, adding that if tomorrow the PTI came into power and Jehangir Tareen became a finance minister, he will be quite aware of bank interest rate.

Sikandar Bashir submitted before the court that there has been no concealment or misrepresentation or violation of Section 12(2) or 42A of the Representation of People Act or of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution with respect to ownership by his client of any offshore company as he has no legal or beneficial interest in any of the offshore company. Meanwhile, the court adjourned the hearing till today (Thursday).

http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/com/cwEr/~4/NDZpyJlPLio

أكثر...