ISLAMABAD: Former President Asif Ali Zardari Tuesday requested the Accountability Court to acquit him in the Park Lane Reference before his indictment.
The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) had filed Park Lane Reference on charges of corruption through fake bank accounts and embezzlement in the financial facility for Park Lane Private Limited and Parthenon (Pvt) Limited on August 19, 2019.
The NAB alleged that the national exchequer suffered a loss of Rs3.77 billion because of the irregularities.
As per the prosecution, the Park Lane case is being investigated under different sections of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 1999, and the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, for Zardari's alleged involvement "in extending loan and its misappropriation by M/S Parthenon Private Limited, M/S Park Lane Estate Private Limited and others".
Zardari's counsel Farooq H Naek, while arguing over acquittal application before the Accountability Court judge, Muhammad Azam Khan, said the court should understand whether the NAB has acted according to the law as the bureau cannot file suo motu reference against loan transactions.
The case is related to deliberate loan fraud and the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) should take action, he said, adding that loan defaulting was a matter concerning the SBP.
When someone defaults on a loan, the State Bank governor approves a reference against them and sends a notice.
Naek said that according to the NAB documents the matters were between two companies, Park Lane and Parthenon Company.
The property of Park Lane had mortgaged for acquiring loan, he said, adding that loan had been extended to Parthenon Company.
The judge asked if loan was extended to Parthenon, then why the property of Park Lane was being mortgaged.
At this, Naek said that there was a joint venture (JV) agreement between the two companies, and Parthenon Company had to construct building over the plot of Park Lane. At this, the judge said that in this way Park Lane had become the beneficiary.
If Parthenon had to borrow money to build the building, why did the Park Lane not borrow it? The judge further questioned Naek.
Zardari's counsel replied that if the two companies had done so, then what was the crime in that case? Naek said that according to the NAB, the consortium of the SBP and the Summit Bank approved the loan. The counsel said that the Summit Bank filed a recovery case in the banking court as the loan could not be repaid on time.
This case had been filed, before the NAB inquiry and filing of the reference, he said.
He said that the NAB had filed supplementary reference on November 12, 2019.
During the arguments, he said that two laws were applicable in that case.
According to the NAB law, there was a law for willful default, he said, adding that willful default was not committed by Zardari but by Parthenon Company.
He said that Zardari had not committed any willful default in his personal capacity.
As per Company Ordinance 1984, the registrar of the company was responsible, he said.
He said that in that case, the bank was not complainant.
The bank did not even issue a notice to Parthenon to repay the loan within 30 days, he said.
According to the law, the public office holder was not even given seven days notice by the governor SBP.
He said that there was no record of both the notices.
The counsel said that the NAB accused Zardari of influencing bank as a president of Pakistan.
Does influencing fall under the category of crime under the NAB laws? he questioned.
He said that the allegation mentioned incurring loses to bank, but Zardari did not incur any lose to the bank.
He said that as per the reference the losses were incurred on the bank not to the national exchequer, where did the national exchequer come from?
He said that the NAB law did not apply in that case and he would prove it.
The counsel said that Iqbal Khan Noori was the director of Parthenon Company and not a fake person.
The NAB has arrested him.
Then how did Parthenon become a front company?
At this, the NAB prosecutor, Sardar Muzaffar Abbasi, said that Parthenon was merely a front company of Park Lane and its entire management was of Park Lane.
The Parthenon Company does not even have its own office, it used Park Lane offices, he said.
Sardar said that Parthenon did no business accept borrowing.
The court following Naek's request adjourned hearing of the case till July 21st, and he will continue his arguments at the next hearing.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2020
Comments
Comments are closed.