Panama Leaks: SC observes it is being swamped with petitions everyday

[PakSword]

Court job is to govern based on the concrete evidence. It is not court job to judge the client personally. Otherwise, it will be bias. That's why the court has to remain neutral.

I have said it all long. You need to concrete evidence. Of course, PMLN story was gonna check it out. If Qatar confirmed it is true, then that is it. Since the defendant had been accused, then it is only fair that the prosecutors have to provide the concrete evidence to validate its stand prior to the making accusation against the defendant.

You can't accept a statement in a personal capacity (as it was not from government of Qatar) until you cross examine the statement. There are several ways to do this. You first raise objection on the authenticity of the document and ask the court to order the person who has made the self declaration to present himself in the court for cross questioning. Then you also cross examine the document with other contradictory evidences. PTI has copy of a UK court judgement that shows that a loan was secured against the properties. Of course, one can't secure loan on another person's property. Once a single false fact in self declaration is established, it becomes unacceptable evidence.

How much more concrete evidence does one need?

 

[Finer]

You can't accept a statement in a personal capacity (as it was not from government of Qatar) until you cross examine the statement. There are several ways to do this. You first raise objection on the authenticity of the document and ask the court to order the person who has made the self declaration to present himself in the court for cross questioning. Then you also cross examine the document with other contradictory evidences. PTI has copy of a UK court judgement that shows that a loan was secured against the properties. Of course, one can't secure loan on another person's property. Once a single false fact in self declaration is established, it becomes unacceptable evidence.

How much more concrete evidence does one need?

PTI party accused them. Not the other way around. If Qatar confirmed in personally, that is it. Whereas for the accusation still stand boils down to the prosecutors validating their stand based on the concrete evidence [money trail to black money].

It is simple. There is the reason why the benefits of doubt goes to the accused party since it is accused party right to claim 'innocent until proven guilty'. Once Qatar story checks out, that's it. At the end, the prosecutors will have to step up and provide the concrete evidence.

As someone said earlier, if the case was based on the charge of lies, then maybe and just maybe, this case might have chance taking contradiction into the account.

Imran Khan's lawyer is treating this case as if the accused party is already declared guilty, thus asking for accountability of the accused party, its authentication of the documents, ...etc. His lawyer need to be reminded that the accused party is not declared guilty yet, not to mention the accused party still remains innocent until proven guilty.

 

[PakSword]

PTI party accused them. Not the other way around. If Qatar confirmed in personally, that is it. Whereas for the accusation still stand boils down to the prosecutors validating their stand based on the concrete evidence [money trail to black money].

It is simple. There is the reason why the benefits of doubt goes to the accused party since it is accused party right to claim 'innocent until proven guilty'. Once Qatar story checks out, that's it. At the end, the prosecutors will have to step up and provide the concrete evidence.

As someone said earlier, if the case was based on the charge of lies, then maybe and just maybe, this case might have chance taking contradiction into the account.

In money laundering cases, burden of proof has been shifted to accused. Pakistan has also adopted this requirement, because, you can't prove accusations without getting access to personal records (such as bank statements and property documents) that is not provided. Please see below

Illicit enrichment – wealth of public officials that is manifestly out of proportion to his or her present or past official emolument – is criminalized in Bangladesh; Hong Kong, China; India; Malaysia; Nepal; Pakistan; the Philippines and Singapore. To enhance the effectiveness of this provision, India, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan and the Philippines have shifted the burden of proof to the accused.

You can also read the document on OECD.ORG: Sanctioning and Prosecuting Corruption and Related Offenses - OECD

PTIs whole case is based on money laundering. That's why court told PMLN on day one that PMLN needs to provide the proofs. Remember when they said "aap hamain yeh bataain kay paisa kaisay bheja aur kahan se aaya aur phir aaram se ghar jaein".

Regarding Sheikh Rasheed Petition, yes, it is focusing on contradictions of Sharif family, specially NS on the parliament floor.

 

[Finer]

In money laundering cases, burden of proof has been shifted to accused. Pakistan has also adopted this requirement, because, you can't prove accusations without getting access to personal records (such as bank statements and property documents) that is not provided. Please see below

Illicit enrichment – wealth of public officials that is manifestly out of proportion to his or her present or past official emolument – is criminalized in Bangladesh; Hong Kong, China; India; Malaysia; Nepal; Pakistan; the Philippines and Singapore. To enhance the effectiveness of this provision, India, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan and the Philippines have shifted the burden of proof to the accused.

You can also read the document on OECD.ORG: Sanctioning and Prosecuting Corruption and Related Offenses - OECD

PTIs whole case is based on money laundering. That's why court told PMLN on day one that PMLN needs to provide the proofs. Remember when they said "aap hamain yeh bataain kay paisa kaisay bheja aur kahan se aaya aur phir aaram se ghar jaein".

PTI whoe case is based on what Nawaz Sharif brings on the table. Even on the money laundering case, Prosecutors have no concrete evidence to back with. I have feeling that Nawaz Sharif's story might check out given the personal recommendation of Qatar. Bear in mind, once the story checks out, then it boils down to the prosecutors to validate their stand [money laundering] based on the concrete evidence.

The case could have ended today if Prosecutors did have concrete evidence. I am afraid this might be futile experience since the whole case is depending on what Nawaz Sharif brings on the table rather proving Nawaz Sharif guilty by concrete evidence.

At the end after the story checks out, then the accused party can still claim 'innocent until proven guilty', and right now, the accused party is innocent. The guilty part goes to the prosecutors to prove.

 

[PakSword]

Imran Khan's lawyer is treating this case as if the accused party is already declared guilty, thus asking for accountability of the accused party

In money laundering cases, the accused has to prove his innocence.

 

[Finer]

In money laundering cases, the accused has to prove his innocence.

Not really if the accused party's story checks out. Then the next stage begins which is prosecutors turn to prove concrete evidence to validate their stand.

 

[PakSword]

I have feeling that Nawaz Sharif might check out given the personal recommendation of Qatar

You are sounding like the statement was given by Qatar government. For us, it was a personal statement, rather a self declaration which has no value unless the person is cross questioned and the statement is cross examined. Unfortunately, PTI councel didn't do it yesterday.

The case could have ended today if Prosecutors did have concrete evidence.

The evidences that PTI has submitted are very concrete. Problem is, their lawyers are not using the evidences. For example today, Hamid Khan spent one and a half hours in reading PMs addresses word by word. It was really not required. That's where some judges said that you have so much material, please bring it on.

Let me tell you, Qatari statement will be rejected once it's proven that the loan was secured against these properties in 1999. The case will not be closed even after that because its still a long way to prove money laundering. But the defense of PMLN that is right now solely relying on Qatari statement will become much much weaker.

 

[Emmie]

Are you suggesting the ruling should be based on emotional rhetoric instead of concrete evidence?

Forget that it is Nawaz Sharif, and pretend it is someone else. How do you decide the defendant is guilty or innocent? We don't know that person. The only way to prove that accused defendant is guilty based on the concrete evidence.

if the prosecutors fail to provide the evidence, then it is only fair why 'innocent until proven guilty' should be applied to give the benefits of doubt to the accused party.

Yes I am suggesting that! Now take me to the court, I'll present a certified letter just like Nawaz Sharif & if Qatari letter checks out my letter shall be checked out too.

 

[PakSword]

if the accused party's story checks out

It's a big IF. PTI lawyers need to object. They haven't even objected to the self declaration submitted. If you are thinking that court has accepted the letter as it is, you are probably not correct. It is PTI councel's stupidity that they didn't even object the statement and requested court to allow them for cross examining and cross questioning the individual.

 

[Mrc]

It's a big IF. PTI lawyers need to object. They haven't even objected to the self declaration submitted. If you are thinking that court has accepted the letter as it is, you are probably not correct. It is PTI councel's stupidity that they didn't even object the statement and requested court to allow them for cross examining and cross questioning the individual.

is there a compromise going on? why has ik left for London today? this was a straight forward objection, a first year law student should be able to raise this...

 

[Finer]

You are sounding like the statement was given by Qatar government. For us, it was a personal statement, rather a self declaration which has no value unless the person is cross questioned and the statement is cross examined. Unfortunately, PTI councel didn't do it yesterday.

It doesn't matter. If Qatar comment checks out, that is it. Then the next part is guilty which prosecutors will now have to prove. If you are reading this case, the judge constantly asked for the evidence. Spare the formality and go straight to the evidence. Instead the prosecutors wasted the whole time on the formality and the evidence provided by prosecutors hardly qualified for concrete evidence, hence the term intangible evidence.

The evidences that PTI has submitted are very concrete. Problem is, their lawyers are not using the evidences. For example today, Hamid Khan spent one and a half hours in reading PMs addresses word by word. It was really not required. That's where some judges said that you have so much material, please bring it on.

Oh My God. So you have no clue what does intangible evidence means? That is from the horse's mouth aka the judge of the court. Intangible evidence. What case are you following?

Let me tell you, Qatari statement will be rejected once it's proven that the loan was secured against these properties in 1999. The case will not be closed even after that because its still a long way to prove money laundering. But the defense of PMLN that is right now solely relying on Qatari statement will become much much weaker.

That is up to the court. Even then, the court cannot discard the Qatar recommendation since the accused party is not proven guilty to begin with. You do understand the formality of 'innocent until proven guilty', right?

Yes I am suggesting that! Now take me to the court, I'll present a certified letter just like Nawaz Sharif & if Qatari letter checks out my letter shall be checked out too.

I cannot. You will emerge as victorious because i lack evidence to validate my stand against you.

 

[PakSword]

Yes I am suggesting that! Now take me to the court, I'll present a certified letter just like Nawaz Sharif & if Qatari letter checks out my letter shall be checked out too.

Exactly, what if we both declare that we sold the properties to Nawaz Sharif in 1993 against certain cash payment.. Our statement should be checked out as well.

 

[Finer]

It's a big IF. PTI lawyers need to object. They haven't even objected to the self declaration submitted. If you are thinking that court has accepted the letter as it is, you are probably not correct. It is PTI councel's stupidity that they didn't even object the statement and requested court to allow them for cross examining and cross questioning the individual.

It is not. If Qatar statement corroborates with the claim, then that is it. You have to remember that the accused party is not guilty to begin with. The accused party is innocent until proven guilty. To prove him guilty, the prosecutors still have to provide the concrete evidence, not intangible evidence.

 

[PakSword]

Oh My God. So you have no clue what does intangible evidence means? That is from the horse's mouth aka the judge of the court. Intangible evidence. What case are you following?

Bhai, today the statement that was read out in front of the court was intangible, that too by one judge. Three other judges already said that there are contradictions in Qatari letter and PMs statement on the floor.

You do understand the formality of 'innocent until proven guilty', right?

Have you by any chance read the AML ordinance 2007? Its not a normal case, it's a different case. PTI Councel just need to question the authenticity of Qatari statement and prove it false (that is really easy in the presence of judgement of UK court even if your lawyers are saying that it was an ex party judgement). Just ask any lawyer and he will tell you.

Qatar recommendation

Please don't use the word QATAR. It was a Qatari national's statement. When you write QATAR, a common reader like me thinks that PM has God forbid brought something from Qatar's government.

 

[Emmie]

I cannot. You will emerge as victorious because i lack evidence to validate my stand against you.

This would also mean the letter I am bearing is forged one, you know that even the court knows that. Hell, even evidence act 1984 declares my letter not admissible. Poor you, can't catch me.