Clearly you are not familiar with police system. The only way police can raid if they have warrant. I am guessing they had concrete evidence or foundation to base on which earned the warrant for search and raid to carry the police legal raid.
Without search and raid warrant, it is illegal for police to conduct search and raid. That's why police is not raiding your home at this moment.
But the principle remains the same. You entertain the idea of 'presume guilty until proven innocent', and that's what Blasphemy law is based on.
The burden of proof is on the State bank, related banks, FBR an other state institutions ,
The accused (PM) will be guilty if above institutions fail to provide an input that matches claims of the accused(PM).
Burden of proof is on the accused as mentioned below on NAB ordinance.
9 (a) A holder of a public office, or any other person, is said to commit or to have committed the offence of corruption and corrupt practices-
(iv) if he by corrupt, dishonest, or illegal means, obtains or seeks to obtain for himself, or for his spouse 3* or dependents or any other person, any property, valuable thing, or pecuniary advantage; or
(v) if he or any of his dependents or benamidar owns, possesses, or has 4[acquired] right or title in any [“assets or holds irrevocable power of attorney in respect of any assets] orpecuniary resources disproportionate to his known sources of income, which he cannot 1[reasonably] account for [or maintains a standard of living beyond that which is commensurate with his sources of income]; or
(vi) 2[if he misuses his authority so as to gain any benefit or favour for himself or any other person, or 3[renders or attempts to render] 4[or willfully fails to exercise his authority to prevent the grant, or rendition of any undue benefit or favour which he could have prevented by exercising his authority];
(vii) if he has issued any directive, policy, or any SRO (Statutory Regulatory Order) or any other order which grants or [attempts to grant] any [undue] concession or benefit in any taxation matter or law or otherwise so as to benefit himself or any relative or associate or a benamidar 1[or any other person]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. (a) Where in any trail of [an offence under clauses (i), (ii), (iii) and
(iv) of sub-section (a) of section 9] it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained, or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain, for himself or for any other person any gratification, other than legal remuneration, or any valuable thing, or any pecuniary advantage from a person or any agent of a person, for any favour shown or promised to be shown by the accused,
it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained, or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain, that gratification or that valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for, himself or some other person, as the case may be, as a motive or a reward such as is specified in section 161 to 163 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (Act XLV of 1860), or, as the case may be, without consideration, or for a consideration which he, believed to be inadequate.
5[ (d) [In any
trial] of an offence under [clauses (vi) and (vii) of section 9], the burden of proof that he used his authority, or issued any directive, or authorised the issuance of any policy or statutory rule or order (SRO), or made any grant or allowed any concession, in the public interest, fairly, justly, and for the advancement of the purpose of the enactment under which the authority was used, directive or policy
or rule or order was issued or grant was made or concession was allowed shall lie on [the accused], and in the absence of such proof the accused shall be guilty of the offence, and his conviction shall not be invalid by the reason that it is based solely on such presumption:]
http://www.nab.gov.pk/Downloads/nao.asp#Corruption_12
