Panama leak Case Proceedings - JIT Report, News, Updates And Discussion

[Emmie]

Sir,
I know what ICIJ is. That was the reason I specified it does not have jurisdiction. What they have done in the past 20 yrs from 1997 is related to International Disputes.

Here is the link. https://www.icij.org/about
Please see What we do? Para 2.

Now if you see these stories they were all settled out of court.

Then I mentioned about Mr. Cheema and suggested he might be able to give information regarding Laws made by United Nations. And how they have been interpreted in various other countries hence mention the relevant Laws.

Sir ICIJ is a project of Center of Public Integrity, which is a legal body.
https://www.publicintegrity.org/about/our-organization

Now releasing leaks or news which is not true would become a crime under US Laws. So what ever they investigate has to be reported on facts which indicate that all the research they carry out is checked and cross checked. Record is also maintained.

Sir indirectly ICIJ becomes a legal body because of the parentage. Now please inform me if my reply was appropriate or not.

ICIJ does not have jurisdiction? What jurisdiction are you talking about?

Dude let's get facts straight - ICIJ is a non-legal organisation and so do Center of Public Integrity. Reports these organisation make have no legal binding whatsoever. As I said earlier if someone is aggrieved with the leaks, he/she can sue the organisation for defamation in USA, so whats your point?

As I contented earlier Umer Cheema being ICIJ representative in Pakistan can be summoned but why will he explain international laws? What is in common between his organisation and international laws implementing body?

Who told you center of public integrity was a legal body?

About the Center for Public Integrity
The Center for Public Integrity was founded in 1989 by Charles Lewis. We are one of the country's oldest and largest nonpartisan, nonprofit investigative news organizations. Our mission: To serve democracy by revealing abuses of power, corruption and betrayal of public trust by powerful public and private institutions, using the tools of investigative journalism.

https://www.publicintegrity.org/#_ga=1.179716644.1664323309.1477601128

 

[Arsalan]

ICIJ is acronym for International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, which is a US based organisation focusing on issues like cross-border crime, corruption, and the accountability of power. Needless to remind it was ICIJ which released the data alias Panama leaks. It's not a legal body, now please reread my post and reply accordingly.

Forget that!

It is not just about Nawaz Sharif and his party. Even you and i are entitled for 'innocent until proven guilty'. It is only way the system can work and does work in the real world. I am not concerned about the court because the case never had chance to begin with. That being said, if they did corruption in real life, they won't be escape from the wrath of Allah. That's guaranteed. Besides, Allah did promise victory against corruption and greater Pakistan ahead as soon as 100 years of process is completed. So be patient as Allah promise is near. .

Brother it is not about NS, PMLN, You or Me, it is about the law. What i am trying to explain is that in corruption charges the "Innocent until prove guilty" is not what is followed. It is by law. By law the accused have to prove himself/herself innocent. I am sorry that i have been able to explain this to you.

I will take your words for it given your experience with PMLN supporters.

Relax, i am not offended. I am sorry if i appeared to be seem that way. We are just having fun and civilized debate. That's all.

No no, i am relaxed. Was just a bit worried that i might have said or done something that irritated you. Good to know that it is not the case

'Innocent until proven guilty' protocol is applied all over the world. That's why even the allegedly criminals get away due to lack of evidences. That protocol is also accordance within Islamic system. Prosecutors have to bring the evidence, concrete evidence that can tie the case connecting with money paper trail and whatnot. I believe in the evidence since we are not acquainted with the life and truth. That's why judge rules in according with the evidences on front given the limitation of judge. Otherwise, it will be chaos.

NOT is corruption allegations. That is what i was trying to say. Not saying that it should not be applied in this particular case but saying that it is NOT APPLIED in the corruption cases. This is all i have been trying to say.

 

[Finer]

Forget that!



Brother it is not about NS, PMLN, You or Me, it is about the law. What i am trying to explain is that in corruption charges the "Innocent until prove guilty" is not what is followed. It is by law. By law the accused have to prove himself/herself innocent. I am sorry that i have been able to explain this to you.

How do you prove that you are innocent and you are not involved in corruption?

For example, i say i am innocent, but prosecutors say 'you are much bigga liaar'. Then, i say i am innocent. I have proof. Check out my account. Then prosecutor says no, you have another account here where you channeled the money to out of nation. I say, this is absurd allegation, and i have no such account. Prosecutor says liar and i say i am not. Going back and forth will make the world go around. It is chaos. You see my point?

Why? Because prosecutors is not backing up with their words, rather throwing mindless accusation without evidence just because prosecutors can on the special privileges granted by your legal preference whereas the accused claims to not have the account accused fpr channeling the money to elsewhere, yet being grilled while prosecutors cannot prove the accused party guilty.

You do realize that by the sound of it - the accused one will have to prove their own innocent even though it is accusers that should be able to back with their words or better yet, prosecutors that work on the case gathering intel, evidence, testimony to build the case takes month to prepare.

No no, i am relaxed. Was just a bit worried that i might have said or done something that irritated you. Good to know that it is not the case

Then, we are good.

NOT is corruption allegations. That is what i was trying to say. Not saying that it should not be applied in this particular case but saying that it is NOT APPLIED in the corruption cases. This is all i have been trying to say.

Yes, and it is called evidences. Many have to be arrested on corruption charges whether through police legal raid and search [with search warrant based on evidence], and prosecutors proved the accused ones are guilty on the charge of corruption with the concrete evidence to back with.

Give me one example where the accused one has been arrested without evidence. One example and it is without evidence as starter which is your whole point while terming it as legal preference concerning the matter of corruption which is serious crime requires a lot of gathering evidences.

And explain to me why Khawaja Asif got his charges cleared. I even called it given the lack of evidence since there were no money trail to trace back. I don't believe he is innocent, but unfortunately, lack of evidence appear to be at work here.

 

[Arsalan]

How do you prove that you are innocent and you are not involved in corruption?

For example, i say i am innocent, but prosecutors say 'you are much bigga liaar'. Then, i say i am innocent. I have proof. Check out my account. Then prosecutor says no, you have another account here where you channeled the money to out of nation. I say, this is absurd allegation, and i have no such account. Prosecutor says liar and i say i am not. Going back and forth will make the world go around. It is chaos. You see my point?

Why? Because prosecutors is not backing up with their words, rather throwing mindless accusation without evidence just because prosecutors can on the special privileges granted by your legal preference whereas the accused claims to not have the account accused fpr channeling the money to elsewhere, yet being grilled while prosecutors cannot prove the accused party guilty.

You do realize that by the sound of it - the accused one will have to prove their own innocent even though it is accusers that should be able to back with their words or better yet, prosecutors that work on the case gathering intel, evidence, testimony to build the case takes month to prepare.

By providing proof that the money is legit and the properties are all legal ones bought from money that have a proper legal trail.

The point here is not proving that the flats in Mayfair exist or not. J The point was HOW they were bought and as I said, LEGALLY, in corruption allegations the accused have to prove his/her innocence. Again, not saying how it SHOULD be but just telling you how it IS in corruptions cases legally speaking. You can check this with any one from the field. In other cases, like theft or murder etc the person who is accusing have to prove the guilt of other otherwise the man challenged is innocent until proven guilty. Not the case in corruption cases.

Then, we are good.

Yeah yeah, perfectly fine man. All i was trying was to correct a small mistake you made in the starting post by stating that it is "innocent until prove guilty" and i just wanted you to correct on that, that legally, it is NOT the case in corruption cases.

Yes, and it is called evidences. Many have to be arrested on corruption charges whether through police legal raid and search [with search warrant based on evidence], and prosecutors proved the accused ones are guilty on the charge of corruption with the concrete evidence to back with.

Give me one example where the accused one has been arrested without evidence. One example and it is without evidence as starter which is your whole point while terming it as legal preference concerning the matter of corruption which is serious crime requires a lot of gathering evidences.

Sir no arrests here either. It is a drive to challenge the defendant and to start probe into the alleged accounts. The onus is on the accused one to prove the other wrong. That is how it is all over the world in these cases.

Perhaps you should talk to someone in this field and check with him? That might help you understand the situations.

 

[Finer]

By providing proof that the money is legit and the properties are all legal ones bought from money that have a proper legal trail.

The point here is not proving that the flats in Mayfair exist or not. J The point was HOW they were bought and as I said, LEGALLY, in corruption allegations the accused have to prove his/her innocence. Again, not saying how it SHOULD be but just telling you how it IS in corruptions cases legally speaking. You can check this with any one from the field. In other cases, like theft or murder etc the person who is accusing have to prove the guilt of other otherwise the man challenged is innocent until proven guilty. Not the case in corruption cases.

Except prosecutors is not gonna ask me on the account that is clean, rather ask me on the invisible account to prove where the money is being channeled into. I say no, and this is absurd allegation. Then, what is next?

Let's play lawyer game.

You are prosecutor now. And i am accused party.

I say, this is absurd allegation, and i have no such account. Prove me guilty if i have such account.

You are next; Prosecutor. Prove me wrong.

Yeah yeah, perfectly fine man. All i was trying was to correct a small mistake you made in the starting post by stating that it is "innocent until prove guilty" and i just wanted you to correct on that, that legally, it is NOT the case in corruption cases.


Sir no arrests here either. It is a drive to challenge the defendant and to start probe into the alleged accounts. The onus is on the accused one to prove the other wrong. That is how it is all over the world in these cases.

Perhaps you should talk to someone in this field and check with him? That might help you understand the situations.

Just give one example. Instead of correcting me, why not list one truly example where the alleged party can be charged on corruption without evidence as starter. Just list the example and then talk.

 

[Arsalan]

Except prosecutors is not gonna ask me the account which is clean, rather ask me to prove where the money is being channeled into. I say no, and this is absurd allegation. Then, what is next?

bahi it is not about account or should i say, not about accounts alone!! Even the Nawaz Sharif's family is not denying that the Mayfair apartments belong to them. All they have to do is provide proofs of the money and that it was clean. It is NOT the other way around.

Just give one example. Instead of correcting me, why not list one truly example where the alleged party can be charged on corruption without evidence as starter. Just list the example and then talk.

Oh, sorry! I meant no disrespect when i said "i am correcting you".

It was just that i saw you making that "innocent until prove guilty" statement as a law and i mentioned that GLOBALLY that is not the case in corruption allegation. I will revert back with the examples as surely i will have to look up for some cases. The big fishes have mostly resigned and so there was no case to begin with. Will look up a case as well where the accused party was asked for proof of money and the property and was asked to prove that it is legal.

 

[Finer]

bahi it is not about account or should i say, not about accounts alone!! Even the Nawaz Sharif's family is not denying that the Mayfair apartments belong to them. All they have to do is provide proofs of the money and that it was clean. It is NOT the other way around.

Now you are trolling.

It is not about they have, rather it is about can you prove they have the assets. You cannot ask the accused party to prove when you are already accusing them to begin with. Every accused party including the one with corruption charges are entitled to claim 'innocent until proven guilty'. It is the accusers that should do the most of talking since they are the one who made noises to begin with. Think of it as customary if that is not legal preference to you.

Oh, sorry! I meant no disrespect when i said "i am correcting you".

It was just that i saw you making that "innocent until prove guilty" statement as a law and i mentioned that GLOBALLY that is not the case in corruption allegation. I will revert back with the examples as surely i will have to look up for some cases. The big fishes have mostly resigned and so there was no case to begin with. Will look up a case as well where the accused party was asked for proof of money and the property and was asked to prove that it is legal.

I am not disrespected nor i am mad for the last time.

Quit stalling and prove an example. [again not mad ]

I am not asking about the case at all. Just an example where the corrupt leaders can be arrested on the charges of corruption without evidence as starter. You have the whole world as your disposable.

 

[Arsalan]

Now you are trolling.

It is not about they have, rather it is about can you prove they have the assets. You cannot ask the accused party to prove when you are already accusing them to begin with. Every accused party including the one with corruption charges are entitled to claim 'innocent until proven guilty'. It is the accusers that should do the most of talking since they are the one who made noises to begin with. Think of it as customary if that is not legal preference to you.




I am not disrespected nor i am mad for the last time.

Quit stalling and prove an example. [again not mad ]

I am not asking about the case at all. Just an example where the corrupt leaders can be arrested on the charges of corruption without evidence as starter. You have the whole world as your disposable.

what???
trolling???
come on!!!!!

I am, in fact, was just trying to tell you a little point that you are not getting and you think my continued effort to make you do so is trolling? Brother have you ever seen what trolling is like? Are you saying this only because i mention the name of Nawaz Sharif and PMLN? Ok, i will make it easier for you. If Imran khan is accused of corrouption by anyone it is on to him to prove it wrong! If SC takes notice of those charges he will be asked to provide documentation to prove that he is not guilty. The financial matters have a paper trail because of this!!

I stand by the statement that is corrouption charges it is the accused party who have all the documentation/or lack of it that will make the case and that is the reason they are asked to prove their innocence. The tax returs, financial records, the audits are ALL part of that process. If in this case PM was claiming that flats do not belong to him then yes, in that case the other side had to prove that the flats belonged to them. That is not the case and it is now on to PM and his family to prove that it was all bought by legal money.

As for the arrest, just answer me this, have nawaz shrif been arrested? have he stepped aside or resigned? Have SC asked him to resign??? If know then what are you arguing about? Why so agitated of SC have asked for an answer, a reply??

That itself is an example case. If by innocent you mean "not arrested" then yes it was my mistake for not understanding you properly and i am not shy to admit where i am wromg. He wont be arrested and he have not been until the allegations are proven by investigating body. However if asked about this by SC then it is him who have to provide documents to prove his innocence. Isnt that exactly what is happening?

You know what, you say you are not mad or angry, i will take your word for that. However i will be honest with you, I AM. not mad as in mad mad but disappointed for sure. What started as a little attempt to explain the process seem to have been taken as a politically driven debate. I am not on of those political party supporters who will just follow the lead blindly. Those supporters of PMLN, PTI, PPPP or even MQM who are impossible to debate with!!

 

[Finer]

what???
trolling???
come on!!!!!

I am, in fact, was just trying to tell you a little point that you are not getting and you think my continued effort to make you do so is trolling? Brother have you ever seen what trolling is like? Are you saying this only because i mention the name of Nawaz Sharif and PMLN? Ok, i will make it easier for you. If Imran khan is accused of corrouption by anyone it is on to him to prove it wrong! If SC takes notice of those charges he will be asked to provide documentation to prove that he is not guilty. The financial matters have a paper trail because of this!!

That is the basic problem you don't seem to understand. If anyone accuses Imran Khan, then Imran Khan has right to plead with 'innocent until proven guilty'. In Canada, it is called section 11.

In Canada, section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: "Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal".

I stand by the statement that is corrouption charges it is the accused party who have all the documentation/or lack of it that will make the case and that is the reason they are asked to prove their innocence.

Spoken like stubborn Imran Khan. It is obvious that you know you are in err now, yet you still refuse to accept that. That's why i gave you benefits of doubt for providing with at least one example. I am not even talking about case. Just a tiny example in the whole world to use as your disposable. I mean anyone who is charged on the corruption without evidence as starter.

That itself is an example case. If by innocent you mean "not arrested" then yes it was my mistake for not understanding you properly and i am not shy to admit where i am wromg. He wont be arrested and he have not been until the allegations are proven by investigating body. However if asked about this by SC then it is him who have to provide documents to prove his innocence. Isnt that exactly what is happening?

You are lucky that the world doesn't resolve around your wishful protocol. It means you will be able to plead Fourth Amendment or something along with those lines to the constitution of Pakistan 'innocent until proven guilty'. Just be glad that it is not your wishful protocol at place even though you choose not to admit it just to stay consistent with your point which contradicts to the even basic fundamental part of justice system all over the world.

You know what, you say you are not mad or angry, i will take your word for that. However i will be honest with you, I AM. not mad as in mad mad but disappointed for sure. What started as a little attempt to explain the process seem to have been taken as a politically driven debate. I am not on of those political party supporters who will just follow the lead blindly. Those supporters of PMLN, PTI, PPPP or even MQM who are impossible to debate with!!

Let me repeat. I am not mad or angry at you. If anything, your ego seems to hurt here. No offense.

You cannot prove even with one tiny bit example. Don't take it personal. Just take this debate as learning curve to familiarize with the real world that does contradict with your fantasy world. Again, nothing personal against you and no offense either. #Peace!

 

[Mansoon]

I mean anyone who is charged on the corruption without evidence as starter.

You have evidence of laundered money in Panama Papers.

 

[Verve]

what???
trolling???
come on!!!!!

I am, in fact, was just trying to tell you a little point that you are not getting and you think my continued effort to make you do so is trolling? Brother have you ever seen what trolling is like? Are you saying this only because i mention the name of Nawaz Sharif and PMLN? Ok, i will make it easier for you. If Imran khan is accused of corrouption by anyone it is on to him to prove it wrong! If SC takes notice of those charges he will be asked to provide documentation to prove that he is not guilty. The financial matters have a paper trail because of this!!

I stand by the statement that is corrouption charges it is the accused party who have all the documentation/or lack of it that will make the case and that is the reason they are asked to prove their innocence. The tax returs, financial records, the audits are ALL part of that process. If in this case PM was claiming that flats do not belong to him then yes, in that case the other side had to prove that the flats belonged to them. That is not the case and it is now on to PM and his family to prove that it was all bought by legal money.

As for the arrest, just answer me this, have nawaz shrif been arrested? have he stepped aside or resigned? Have SC asked him to resign??? If know then what are you arguing about? Why so agitated of SC have asked for an answer, a reply??

That itself is an example case. If by innocent you mean "not arrested" then yes it was my mistake for not understanding you properly and i am not shy to admit where i am wromg. He wont be arrested and he have not been until the allegations are proven by investigating body. However if asked about this by SC then it is him who have to provide documents to prove his innocence. Isnt that exactly what is happening?

You know what, you say you are not mad or angry, i will take your word for that. However i will be honest with you, I AM. not mad as in mad mad but disappointed for sure. What started as a little attempt to explain the process seem to have been taken as a politically driven debate. I am not on of those political party supporters who will just follow the lead blindly. Those supporters of PMLN, PTI, PPPP or even MQM who are impossible to debate with!!

He has sucked you in as well ... !

He will never accept it, and if SC judges against NS he'll be the first to cry murder.

 

[Emmie]

@Fallen King your point is, an accused is innocent until proven guilty, right? You are absolutely correct if you're maintaining so, this is called presumption of innocence, basic dogma of criminal judicial system. Free trail is guaranteed by the constitution, for the very reason the government appoints public defender to defend the accused if he/she is indigent and can't afford private defense lawyer.

What you seem to overlook is the fact that there are many courts in a judicial system. In addition to superior courts and subordinate courts there are some special courts also - like anti terrorists courts, banking courts, family courts, NAB courts etc etc. Every court has a different code made under different special laws.

The NAB is an institution which works under special law called NAB ordinance 1999. It exclusively cope with financial irregularities. Normally the procedure is, a reference/complaint against an individual is submitted (NAB can act at its own), NAB authorities investigate into the matter, if substance is found the individual is charged under NAB ordinance, arrest is made and accused is prosecuted in NAB court. @Arsalan is correct, there are some provisions in NAB ordinance, if a person is charged under certain specified charges the onus of proofs is on accused, section 14.

To understand PTI case pending before SC we need to understand few facts. In any judicial system there are two systems of proceedings. 1) Adversarial - plaintiff/prosecutor brings the defendant/accused to a court for certain matter/crime, judge being a referee examines the evidences (onus to prove is on plaintiff/prosecutor) and decides on the basis of presented evidences. 2) Inquisitorial - it's a kind of proceeding that involves inquiry, onus to prove is not on plaintiff, the judge inquires about the matter and decides the case.

Now, the petition that PTI has filed is not an ordinary petition. The petition has been filed under article 184(3) of the constitution of Pakistan, this article deals with the matter related public importance, suo moto action are taken under very same article. The supreme court of Pakistan time and again has established that any matter which is related to public importance falls within the ambit of Inquisitorial system and it has power to do inquiry or investigations.

Even if we look at the petition through the prism of adversarial system, the initial burden to prove has been discharged. Sharifs have admitted the entitles and properties, now the onus of proofs has been shifted to Sharifs, they have to answer the questions raised before court. Had they denied the allegation leveled in Panama papers or in petition, the course of action would have been different.

 

[Finer]

@Fallen King your point is, an accused is innocent until proven guilty, right? You are absolutely correct if you're maintaining so, this is called presumption of innocence, basic dogma of criminal judicial system. Free trail is guaranteed by the constitution, for the very reason the government appoints public defender to defend the accused if he/she is indigent and can't afford private defense lawyer.

Yes, that is true.

What you seem to overlook is the fact that there are many courts in a judicial system. In addition to superior courts and subordinate courts there are some special courts also - like anti terrorists courts, banking courts, family courts, NAB courts etc etc. Every court has a different code made under different special laws.

True. Every court have different code made under different special laws, but those are often for patriotic codes where terrorists can be arrested and jailed based on suspicious grounds. And also for tax accountability where IRS comes into handy taking each documented transactions into the account.

But corruption is serious, and it has been dealt the same everywhere, well almost everywhere. Recently, one of minister got caught in Canada carrying load of cash in the trunk of the car. He was from Pakistan, did exactly as stupid desi would do. Now, that was concrete evidence enough to penalize him to jail and even termination of his political career which happened 8-10 years ago.

Without evidence, the benefit of doubt goes to the accused party if the whole case is depended on the thin substance in the case. And it should be that way since the addition of section 11 guarantees the rights for the accused party to plead with 'innocent until proven guilty'. That should be basic fundamental of the justice system.

The NAB is an institution which works under special law called NAB ordinance 1999. It exclusively cope with financial irregularities. Normally the procedure is, a reference/complaint against an individual is submitted (NAB can act at its own), NAB authorities investigate into the matter, if substance is found the individual is charged under NAB ordinance, arrest is made and accused is prosecuted in NAB court. @Arsalan is correct, there are some provisions in NAB ordinance, if a person is charged under certain specified charges the onus of proofs is on accused, section 14.

Even then, the case is still weak depending on the financial irregularities because there is not concrete evidence unless it is for tax accountability which does make sense. Nonetheless, i will give your post as benefit of doubt just to avoid stretching the argument any more. I am tired to saying the same things over and over again.

To understand PTI case pending before SC we need to understand few facts. In any judicial system there are two systems of proceedings. 1) Adversarial - plaintiff/prosecutor brings the defendant/accused to a court for certain matter/crime, judge being a referee examines the evidences (onus to prove is on plaintiff/prosecutor) and decides on the basis of presented evidences. 2) Inquisitorial - it's a kind of proceeding that involves inquiry, onus to prove is not on plaintiff, the judge inquires about the matter and decides the case.

You just answered it. The judge will have no choice, but to decide on the basic of evidences. If the evidence is strong, then accused party has no chance. If the evidence is weak, then the benefit of doubt goes to the accused. Precisely the same thing happened with Khawaja Asif.

Now, the petition that PTI has filed is not an ordinary petition. The petition has been filed under article 184(3) of the constitution of Pakistan, this article deals with the matter related public importance, suo moto action are taken under very same article. The supreme court of Pakistan time and again has established that any matter which is related to public importance falls within the ambit of Inquisitorial system and it has power to do inquiry or investigations.

Even if we look at the petition through the prism of adversarial system, the initial burden to prove has been discharged. Sharifs have admitted the entitles and properties, now the onus of proofs has been shifted to Sharifs, they have to answer the questions raised before court. Had they denied the allegation leveled in Panama papers or in petition, the course of action would have been different.

Basically, it depends on the judge to analyze with the evidences by prosecutors and presented information by Nawaz Sharif. That's exactly my points.

The accused party will get away if the information presented by Nawaz Sharif checks out. So basically, prosecutors have little evidence to none, otherwise PMLN would have been charged under corruption by now.

I feel like my head is spinning around considering i have been saying these all long over and over again.

 

[Emmie]

Yes, that is true.




True. Every court have different code made under different special laws, but those are often for patriotic codes where terrorists can be arrested and jailed based on suspicious grounds. And also for tax accountability where IRS comes into handy taking each documented transactions into the account.

But corruption is serious, and it has been dealt the same everywhere, well almost everywhere. Recently, one of minister got caught in Canada carrying load of cash in the trunk of the car. He was from Pakistan, did exactly as stupid desi would do. Now, that was concrete evidence enough to penalize him to jail and even termination of his political career which happened 8-10 years ago.

Without evidence, the benefit of doubt goes to the accused party if the whole case is depended on the thin substance in the case. And it should be that way since the addition of section 11 guarantees the rights for the accused party to plead with 'innocent until proven guilty'. That should be basic fundamental of the justice system.



Even then, the case is still weak depending on the financial irregularities because there is not concrete evidence unless it is for tax accountability which does make sense. Nonetheless, i will give your post as benefit of doubt just to avoid stretching the argument any more. I am tired to saying the same things over and over again.



You just answered it. The judge will have no choice, but to decide on the basic of evidences. If the evidence is strong, then accused party has no chance. If the evidence is weak, then the benefit of doubt goes to the accused. Precisely the same thing happened with Khawaja Asif.




Basically, it depends on the judge to analyze with the evidences by prosecutors and presented information by Nawaz Sharif. That's exactly my points.

The accused party will get away if the information presented by Nawaz Sharif checks out. So basically, prosecutors have little evidence to none, otherwise PMLN would have been charged under corruption by now.

I feel like my head is spinning around considering i have been saying these all long over and over again.

The notion that PTI & other petitioners don’t seem to have counter evidence required to nullify Sharifs is not that genuine I believe. They may lack conclusive evidence but still they have plenty of circumstantial evidence capable enough to put a big question mark on Sharif family stance it has taken in the court. There was a reason why I pointed out the inquisitorial nature of the case, you perhaps missed that. Let me remind you the matter either will go to judicial commission for the ascertainment of actual facts (inquiry into whole matter) or will be decided by the same larger bench if conclusive evidence is presented by Tuesday. Considering your legal understanding I am sure you're aware of the fact that majority of the cases don't have direct or conclusive evidence, the concept of indirect evidence is well established and well applicable as well and not necessarily all cases are disposed of on technicalities.

This whole Panama issue has a long history attached to it, this is not the first time that Pakistan has heard about those two offshore companies and Mayfair properties. PM Nawaz’s 1st government was dissolved on the charges of corruption, money laundering and offshore properties were the charges in addition to many other. In 2000 references were filed against Sharifs, same properties with same name were referred, FIA/NAB investigated and gathered heap of documents from abroad and then expediency showed up and documents were left to rot somewhere in basement. Sharifs have denied the existence of offshore companies and London flats until the revelation made in Panama papers.

Sharifs are powerful & have everything at their disposal but still this time round it won’t be easy for them to cloak what they want to remain cloaked. They have a lot to clear, including contradicting and false statements.

 

[Finer]

The notion that PTI & other petitioners don’t seem to have counter evidence required to nullify Sharifs is not that genuine I believe. They may lack conclusive evidence but still they have plenty of circumstantial evidence capable enough to put a big question mark on Sharif family stance it has taken in the court. There was a reason why I pointed out the inquisitorial nature of the case, you perhaps missed that. Let me remind you the matter either will go to judicial commission for the ascertainment of actual facts (inquiry into whole matter) or will be decided by the same larger bench if conclusive evidence is presented by Tuesday. Considering your legal understanding I am sure you're aware of the fact that majority of the cases don't have direct or conclusive evidence, the concept of indirect evidence is well established and well applicable as well and not necessarily all cases are disposed of on technicalities.

It is not, and you already said along with the lines of circumstantial evidence is enough to give benefit of doubts to the accused party, hence Khawaja Asif's charge got clear.

You already have confirmed what i have said earlier, and precisely why the accused party continues to get away because circumstantial evidence sounds good only for the plaintiff, not prosecutors.

Prosecutors must provide concrete evidence. It is only fair that way since it is life of plaintiff that is hanging on the balance, not prosecutors.

This whole Panama issue has a long history attached to it, this is not the first time that Pakistan has heard about those two offshore companies and Mayfair properties. PM Nawaz’s 1st government was dissolved on the charges of corruption, money laundering and offshore properties were the charges in addition to many other. In 2000 references were filed against Sharifs, same properties with same name were referred, FIA/NAB investigated and gathered heap of documents from abroad and then expediency showed up and documents were left to rot somewhere in basement. Sharifs have denied the existence of offshore companies and London flats until the revelation made in Panama papers.

Sharifs are powerful & have everything at their disposal but still this time round it won’t be easy for them to cloak what they want to remain cloaked. They have a lot to clear, including contradicting and false statements.

No one is that powerful. Everyone gets caught eventually. It is just matter of when.

That being said, the resource must be used very wisely to establish the case with fool-proof plan, and even if that takes long, then so be it. Don't rush it which will result compromising the credibility in the process and eventually those who asked for trial will become joker in front of the world.

Problem is Imran Khan lacks patience, and his sudden outburst coupled with desperation tactics ends up only doing u-turn later never mind shooting your own foot first.

Everyone gets caught eventually. It is just matter of when. Maybe in the future if some concrete evidence comes into the light or there will be treaty of Pakistan with England and some Islands where most of rich people have off-shore accounts. That will be end of the black money.

I don't like PMLN nor i support their corruption. But that doesn't mean we should resort to stupidity by calling for trial based on weak and circumstantial evidences at best. That only makes it worse furthermore. At the end, Imran Khan ends up being laughing stock, and we all know the rule that nobody takes joker seriously.