Key prosecution witness and head of joint investigation team, Wajid Zia Friday told accountability court hearing corruption cases against Sharif family members that the JIT had observed that major part of Sharif's statement made before the JIT was hearsay.
Zia while testifying before the accountability court Judge Muhammad Arshad Malik in Flagship reference said Sharif endorsed that the statements of his sons Hassan Nawaz and Hussain Nawaz and daughter Maryam Nawaz were hearsay. Sharif had stated before the JIT that he did not want to discuses the details of the sale proceeds of Gulf Steel Mills (GSM) as they were best known to his father late Mian Muhammad Sharif, he said.
The witness said Sharif further explained that all he knew was that they were later used for business setup outside Pakistan. Sharif stated before the JIT that all expenses related to his sons Hassan and Hussain and flats were being met by his father Mian Muhammad Sharif. However, the witness said that no documented evidence in support of his contention was produced by of the accused.
To another question asked by defence counsel Khawaja Haris, Zia said Shahbaz Sharif also told the JIT that all expenses of Hamza Shahbaz relating to his stay abroad had been borne by his father. Similarly, Capt Muhammad Safdar (retd), son-in-law of Nawaz Sharif, stated before the JIT that he used to receive SAR 1500 per month from Mian Muhammad Sharif and similarly all other members of the family used to receive pocket money from Mian Muhammad Sharif, he said.
The witness said that Sharif stated that he never sent any money abroad to any of his family member. At the start of hearing, Sharif's counsel Khawaja Haris filed an application before the court requesting one day exemption for his client from personal appearance before the court which the court approved.
Zia said it is correct that during investigation JIT did not come across any documentary or verbal evidence that Sharif had any shareholding in Flagship. During investigation, the JIT did not come across any documentary or verbal evidence showing that any UK authority had questioned by way of show cause notice or other about the financial statements of any of the companies set up, acquired or purchased by the co-accused Hussain Nawaz.
Zia said during investigation, the JIT did not come across any documentary or verbal evidence showing that Hassan had been accused of money laundering or any proceeding had been initiated against him by the UK authorities for any of businesses relating to his companies. During investigation, the JIT did not come across any documentary or verbal evidence showing that Hussain had been accused in the UK of any wrongdoing of any nature whatsoever concerning any of the company or any investment made by him or financial transactions carried by him as detailed in the JIT report, he said.
He said during investigation, the JIT did not come across any documentary or verbal evidence showing that any UK authority had taken any action or initiated any proceeding against Hassan in respect of tax returns filed by him in person or any of his companies.
The witness told during investigation it had come to the notice of JIT that Hassan had settled in the UK in the year 2001 and since then has been residing there. Hassan stated before the JIT that he had gone to the UK in a very young age and after completing his studies, he settled has own business there.
He said it is correct that Hassan was 25 years of age at the time of setting up of Flagship Investment Limited. Hassan had stated before the JIT that he was witnessing all the events regarding Panama Papers case and hearings at the Supreme Court from London, he said.
The witness said Hassan also stated that he was not dealing directly with the counsel and had given authority for appointment of counsel but not read the affidavit that was filed individually by his name or jointly with Hussain Nawaz before apex court. Moreover, he said he had not seen the documents that were attached with it. He also stated that he did not vet or see the submission that was made on his behalf or jointly with Hussain that were attached with those submissions, he said.
Zia said it is correct that Hassan stated before the JIT that he had set up Flagship Investment Limited and 12 other companies in subsequent years which were set up with minimal paid-up capital of GPB 1 to GBP 100. The purpose of these companies was to acquire properties, develop them and these sell them, he said.
The witness said Hassan had also stated that all his companies except Quint Paddington made profit. During the investigation, the JIT did not come across any documented or verbal evidence that any bank or financial institution in the UK had initiated any proceeding against Hassan or any of the companies set up or taken over by him for committing default in the payment of loan obtained by him or any of the companies.
The witness said neither any family member had any share in any of his companies nor did they have any management functions. When Hassan was confronted with financial statement of Flagship dated March 31, 2003 - which mentioned directors' interest in the shares of the company including family interest - he could not answer the question satisfactorily. The hearing of the case was adjourned till Monday.
Comments
Comments are closed.