Zardari's Frozen Bank Accounts contained 1.5b USD - US Senate Confirmed

[dr.umer]

MINORITY STAFF REPORT
FOR
PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS
HEARING ON
PRIVATE BANKING AND MONEY LAUNDERING:
A CASE STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES AND VULNERABILITIES
November 9, 1999

View attachment 442c329768180703eb18373bb9ccf24c.jpg​

Asif Ali Zardari Case History

The Facts

The second case history involves Asif Ali Zardari, the husband of Benazir Bhutto, former Prime Minister of Pakistan. Ms. Bhutto was elected Prime Minister in 1988, dismissed by the President of Pakistan in August 1990 for alleged corruption and inability to maintain law and order, elected Prime Minister again in October 1993, and dismissed by the President again in November 1996. At various times, Mr. Zardari served as Senator, Environment Minister and Minister for Investment in the Bhutto government. In between the two Bhutto administrations, he was incarcerated in 1990 and 1991 on charges of corruption; the charges were eventually dropped. During Ms. Bhutto's second term there were increasing allegations of corruption in her government, and a major target of those allegations was Mr. Zardari. It has been reported that the government of Pakistan claims that Ms. Bhutto and Mr. Zardari stole over $1 billion from the country.

During the period 1994 to1997, Citibank opened and maintained three private bank accounts in Switzerland and a consumer account in Dubai for three corporations under Mr. Zardari's control. There are allegations that some of these accounts were used to disguise $10 million in kickbacks for a gold importing contract to Pakistan.

Structure of Private Bank Relationship.

Mr. Zardari's relationship with Citibank began in October 1994, through the services of Kamran Amouzegar, a private banker at Citibank private bank in Switzerland, and Jens Schlegelmilch, a Swiss lawyer who was the Bhutto family's attorney in Europe and close personal friend for more than 20 years. According to Citibank, Mr. Schlegelmilch represented to Mr. Amouzegar that he was working for the Dubai royal family and he wanted to open some accounts at the Citibank branch office in Dubai. Mr. Schlegelmilch had a Dubai residency permit and a visa signed by a member of the Dubai royal family. Mr. Amouzegar agreed to introduce Mr. Schlegelmilch to a banker in the Citibank branch office in Dubai.

According to Citicorp, Mr. Schlegelmilch told the Citibank Dubai banker that he wanted to open an account in the name of M.S. Capricorn Trading, a British Virgin Island PIC. The stated purpose of the account was to receive money and transfer it to Switzerland. The account was opened in early October 1994.

According to Citibank, Mr. Schlegelmilch informed the Dubai banker that he would serve as the representative of the account and the signatory on the account. Under Dubai law, a bank is not required to know an account's beneficial owner, only the signatory. Citibank told the Subcommittee staff that Mr. Schlegelmilch did not reveal to the Dubai banker that Mr. Zardari was the beneficial owner of the PIC, and the account manager never asked him the identity of the beneficial owner of the account. Instead, according to Citibank, she assumed the beneficial owner of the account was the member of the royal family who had signed Mr. Schlegelmilch 's visa. According to Citibank, the account manager actually performed some due diligence on the royal family member whom she believed to be the beneficial owner of the account.

Shortly after opening the account in Dubai, Mr. Schlegelmilch signed a standard referral agreement with Citibank Switzerland private bank guaranteeing him 20% of the first three years of client net revenues earned by the bank from each client he referred to the private bank .

On February 27, 1995, Mr. Schlegelmilch, working with Mr. Amouzegar, opened three accounts at the Citibank Switzerland private bank. The accounts were opened in the name of M.S. Capricorn Trading, which already had an account at Citibank's Dubai branch, as well as Marvel and Bomer Finance, two other British Virgin Island PICs established by Mr. Schlegelmilch, according to Citibank. Each private bank account listed Mr. Schlegelmilch as the account contact and signatory. Citibank informed the Subcommittee that the Swiss Form A, a government-required beneficial owner identification form, identified Mr. Zardari as the beneficial owner of each PIC.

Lack of Due Diligence

The decision to allow Mr. Schlegelmilch to open the three accounts on behalf of Mr. Zardari, according to Citibank, involved officials at the highest levels of the private bank. The officials were: (a) Mr. Amouzegar, the private banker; (b) Deepak Sharma, then head of private bank operations in Pakistan; (c) Phillipe Holderbeke, then head of private bank operations in Switzerland (who became head of the Europe, Middle East, Africa Division in February 1996); (d) Salim Raza, then head of the EMEA Division of the private bank; and (e) Hubertus Rukavina, then head of the Citibank private bank. Mr. Rukavina told the Subcommittee staff that when he was asked about opening the Zardari accounts, he did not make the decision to open them, but rather directed that the matter be discussed with Mr. Sharma. According to Mr. Rukavina, he never heard whether the accounts were ultimately opened. Mr. Rukavina left the private bank in 1996 and left Citibank in 1999.

Citibank informed the Subcommittee staff that the private bank was aware of the allegations of corruption against Mr. Zardari at the time it opened the accounts in Switzerland. However, Citibank reasoned that if the charges for which Mr. Zardari had been incarcerated for two years had any merit, they would not have been dropped. Bank officials also believed that the family wealth of Ms. Bhutto and Mr. Zardari was large enough to support a large private bank account, even though Citibank was not able to specify what actions were taken to verify the amount and source of their wealth.

Citibank said that bank officials were also aware of the M.S. Capricorn Trading account in Dubai, and they were comforted by the fact that there had been no problems with that account.

According to Citibank, Mr. Amouzegar informed his superiors that Mr. Zardari was the beneficial owner of the Capricorn account in Dubai when they were considering the request to open the accounts in Switzerland. Inexplicably, however, the Dubai account manager was apparently still operating under the assumption that the beneficial owner of the Dubai Capricorn account was a member of the Dubai royal family.

Subcommittee staff have been unable to determine whether Citibank officials were unaware of or inattentive to the serious inconsistency between Citibank Switzerland and Citibank Dubai with respect to the Capricorn Trading account. Citibank also informed the Subcommittee staff that bank officials had some concerns that if they turned down the accounts, their actions may have implications for the corporation's operations in Pakistan; however, they said they never received any threats on that issue.

Citibank told the Subcommittee staff the private bank decided to allow Mr. Schlegelmilch to open the three accounts for Mr. Zardari on the condition that the private bank would not be the primary accounts for Mr. Zardari's assets and the accounts would function as passive investment accounts.

Citibank told the Subcommittee staff that Mr. Holderbeke signed a memo delineating the restrictions placed on the accounts, including a $40 million aggregate limit on the size of the three accounts, and transaction restrictions requiring the accounts to function as passive, stable investments, without multiple transactions or funding pass-throughs. None of the Citibank personnel interviewed by Subcommittee staff could identify any other private bank account with these types of restrictions. Other private banks interviewed by the Subcommittee staff were asked if they had ever accepted a client on the condition that certain restrictions be imposed on the account. The banks all said they had not. One bank representative explained that if the bank felt that it needed to place restrictions on the client's account, it didn't want that type of client. The existence of the restrictions are in themselves proof of the private bank's awareness of Mr. Zardari's poor reputation and concerns regarding the sources of his wealth.

Movement of Funds

Citibank told the Subcommittee staff that, once opened, only three deposits were made into the M.S. Capricorn Trading account in Dubai. Two deposits, totaling $10 million were made into the account almost immediately after it was opened. Citibank records show that one $5 million deposit was made on October 5,1994, and another was made on October 6, 1994. The source of both deposits was A.R.Y. International Exchange, a company owned by Abdul Razzak Yaqub, a Pakistani gold bullion trader living in Dubai.

According to the New York Times, in December 1994, the Bhutto government awarded Mr. Razzak an exclusive gold import license. In an interview with the New York Times, Mr. Razzak acknowledged that he had used the exclusive license to import more than $500 million worth of gold into Pakistan. Mr. Razzak denies, however, making any payments to Mr. Zardari.

Citibank could not explain the two $5 million payments. Ms. Bhutto told the Subcommittee staff that since A.R.Y. International Exchange is a foreign exchange business, the payments did not necessarily come from Mr. Razzak, but could have come from a third party who was merely making use of A.R.Y.'s exchange services. The staff invited Ms. Bhutto to provide additional information on the M.S. Capricorn Trading accounts, but she has not yet done so.

On February 25, 1995, a third deposit of $8 million was made into the Dubai M.S. Capricorn Trading account. Records show that the payment was made through American Express, with the originator of the account listed as "Morgan NYC." Citibank indicated it does not know who Morgan NYC is, nor does it know the source of the $8 million.

All of the funds in the Dubai account of M.S. Capricorn Trading were moved to the Swiss accounts in the Spring of 1995. On March 6, 1995, $8.1 million was transferred; and on May 5, 1995, another $10.2 million was transferred. Both transfers involved U.S. dollars and were routed through Citibank's New York offices. Citibank informed the Subcommittee staff that M.S. Capricorn Trading closed its Dubai account shortly after the last transfer was completed.

Citibank has indicated that significant amounts of other funds were also deposited into the Swiss accounts. As described below, the $40 million cap was reached, and millions of additional dollars also passed through those accounts. However, Swiss bank secrecy law has prevented the Subcommittee from obtaining the details on the transactions in the Zardari accounts.

Account Monitoring

Citibank told the Subcommittee staff that, in 1996, the Swiss office of the private bank conducted a number of reviews of the Zardari Swiss accounts, finally deciding in October to close them.

The first review was allegedly in early 1996, triggered by increasing publicity about allegations of corruption against Mr. Zardari. Citibank told the Subcommittee staff that Messrs. Holderbeke, Raza, Sharma and Amouzegar participated in the review, and apparently concluded that the allegations were politically motivated and that the accounts should remain open. The Subcommittee staff was told that the review did not include looking at the accounts' transaction activity.

In March or April, 1996, Mr. Amouzegar asked that the overall limit on the Zardari accounts be increased from $40 million to $60 million, apparently because the accounts had reached the previously imposed limit of $40 million. Citibank told the Subcommittee staff that Mr. Holderbeke considered the request, but declined to increase the $40 million limit.

In June, press reports in the United Kingdom that Mr. Zardari had purchased real estate in London triggered still another review of the Zardari accounts. Citibank private bank told the Subcommittee staff that its Swiss office internally discussed the source of the funds for the property purchase. Mr. Amouzegar and Mr. Raza then met with Mr. Schlegelmilch, who allegedly informed them that funds had been deposited into the Citibank accounts, transferred to another PIC account outside of Citibank and used to purchase the property. Mr. Schlegelmilch allegedly indicated the funds had come from the sale of some sugar mills and were legitimate. Citibank told the Subcommittee staff it is not sure if anyone at the private bank attempted to validate the information about the sale of the sugar mills. In addition, even though this account activity violated the condition imposed by Citibank that the accounts were not to be used as a pass through for funds, the accounts were kept open.

Closing the Accounts

In July 1996, after Mr. Amouzegar left the private bank to open his own company, another private banker, Cedric Grant, took over management of the Zardari accounts. Citibank told the Subcommittee staff that Mr. Grant began to review the Zardari accounts about one month later to familiarize himself with them. He also reviewed the transactions that had taken place within the accounts.

In September and October 1996, press accounts in Pakistan repeatedly raised questions about corruption by Mr. Zardari and Ms. Bhutto, as Ms. Bhutto's re-election campaign increased its activities prior to a February election date. In September, Ms. Bhutto's only surviving brother, Murtaza Bhutto, was assassinated, and Ms. Bhutto's mother accused Ms. Bhutto and Mr. Zardari of masterminding the murder, because the brother had been leading opposition to Ms. Bhutto.

In October, Mr. Grant completed his review of the Zardari accounts and provided a written analysis to Messrs. Holderbeke, Sharma and Raza, according to Citibank. Mr. Grant had found numerous violations of the account restrictions imposed by Citibank, including multiple transactions and funding pass-throughs.

Citibank told the Subcommittee staff that the accounts had functioned more as checking accounts than passive investment accounts, directly contrary to the private bank's restrictions. Apparently, well over $40 million had flowed through the accounts, though Subcommittee staff were unable to ascertain the actual amount because Swiss bank secrecy law prohibits Citibank from sharing that information with the Subcommittee. Citibank indicated that Mr. Amouzegar had either ignored or did not pay attention to the account activity. Mr. Grant recommended closing the accounts, and they were closed by January 1997.

Legal Proceedings

On September 8, 1997, the Swiss government issued orders freezing the Zardari and Bhutto accounts at Citibank and three other banks in Switzerland at the request of the Pakistani government. Since Citibank had closed its Zardari accounts in January 1997, it took no action nor did it make any effort to inform U.S. authorities of the accounts until late November 1997.

Citibank contacted the Federal Reserve and OCC about the Zardari accounts in late November, in anticipation of a New York Times article that eventually ran in January 1998, alleging that Mr. Zardari had accepted bribes, and that he held Citibank accounts in Dubai and Switzerland. On December 8 and 11, 1997, Citibank briefed the OCC and the Federal Reserve, respectively, about the accounts and the steps it had taken as a result of the Zardari matter. These steps included: closing all of the accounts that had been referred by Mr. Schlegelmilch to the private bank and terminating his referral agreement; reviewing all of the accounts opened in the Dubai office; and tightening up account opening procedures in Dubai, including requiring the Dubai office to identify the beneficial owner of all Dubai accounts. Citibank did not identify any changes made or planned for the Swiss office, even though the majority of the activity with respect to the Zardari accounts had taken place in Switzerland.

On December 5, 1997, Citibank prepared a Suspicious Activity Report on the Zardari accounts and filed it with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network at the U.S. Department of Treasury. The filing was made fourteen months after its decision to close the Zardari accounts; thirteen months after Mr. Zardari was arrested a second time for corruption in November 1996; and nearly two months after the Swiss government had ordered four Swiss banks (including Citibank Switzerland) to freeze all Zardari accounts.

In June 1998, Switzerland indicted Mr. Schlegelmilch and two Swiss businessmen, the former senior executive vice president of SGS and the managing director of Cotecna, for money laundering in connection with kickbacks paid by the Swiss companies for the award of a government contract by Pakistan. In July 1998, Mr. Zardari was indicted for violation of Swiss money laundering law in connection with the same incident. Ms. Bhutto was indicted in Switzerland for the same offense in August 1998. A trial on the charges is expected.

In October 1998, Pakistan indicted Mr. Zardari and Ms. Bhutto for accepting kickbacks from the two Swiss companies in exchange for the award of a government contract. On April 15, 1999, after an 18-month trial, Pakistan's Lahore High Court convicted Ms. Bhutto and Mr. Zardari of accepting the kickbacks and sentenced them to 5 years in prison, fined them $8.6 million and disqualified them from holding public office. Ms. Bhutto, who now lives in London, denounced the decision. Mr. Zardari remains in jail. Additional criminal charges are pending against both in Pakistani courts.

On December 11, 1997, Citicorp's Chairman John Reed wrote the following to the Board of Directors:

"We have another issue with the husband of Ex-Prime Minister Bhutto of Pakistan. I do not yet understand the facts but I am inclined to think that we made a mistake. More reason than ever to rework our Private Bank."

Mr. Reed told the Subcommittee staff that it was the combination of the Salinas and Zardari accounts that made him charge Mr. Aziz, the new private bank head, with taking a hard look at the bank's public figure policy and public figure accounts.

The Issues

The Zardari case history raises issues involving due diligence, secrecy and public figure accounts. The Zardari case history begins with the Citibank Dubai branch's failure to identify the true beneficial owner of the M.S. Capricorn Trading account. As a result, the account officer in Dubai performed due diligence on an individual who had no relationship to the account being opened. In Switzerland, Citibank officials opened three private bank accounts despite evidence of impropriety on the part of Mr. Zardari. In an interview with Subcommittee staff, Citigroup Co- Chair John Reed informed the Subcommittee staff that he had been advised by Citibank officials in preparation for a trip to Pakistan in February 1994, that there were troubling accusations concerning corruption surrounding Mr. Zardari, that he should stay away from him, and that he was not a man with whom the bank wanted to be associated. Yet one year later, the private bank opened three accounts for Mr. Zardari in Switzerland. Mr. Reed told the Subcommittee staff that when he learned of the Zardari accounts he thought the account officer must have been "an idiot."

Citibank has been unable to confirm that bank employees verified that Mr. Zardari had a level of wealth sufficient to support the size of the accounts that he was opening. In addition, the Swiss private banker took no action to validate the legitimacy of the source of the funds that were deposited into the account. For example, there was no effort made to verify the claims that some of the funds derived from the sale of sugar mills.

Citibank also performed no due diligence on the client owned and managed PICs that were the named accountholders. Because the PICs were client-created, the bank's failure to perform due diligence on the PICs meant that it had no knowledge of the activities, assets or entities involved with the corporations. One of the PICs, Bomer Finance, has been determined to have been a repository for kickbacks paid to Mr. Zardari, and those kickbacks tainted funds deposited at the Geneva branch of Union Bank of Switzerland. Documentation has not been made available to determine whether Bomer Finance also used its Citibank account for illicit funds.

Another due diligence lapse was the private bank's failure to monitor the Zardari accounts to ensure that the account restrictions imposed on them were being followed. When officials were presented with evidence in 1996 that the restrictions were being violated, they nevertheless allowed the accounts to continue.

The Zardari accounts in Switzerland were opened one day before Raul Salinas was arrested. The account was repeatedly reviewed in 1996, after the Salinas scandal became public. Yet there is no evidence that anyone in the private bank had been sensitized to the problems associated with handling an account of a person suspected of corruption.

The Zardari example also demonstrates the practical consequences of secrecy in private banking. Citibank claims that its decisionmaking in the Zardari matter cannot be fully explained or documented, since all Citibank officials are subject to Swiss secrecy laws prohibiting discussion of client-specific information. In light of the fact that U.S. banks are supposed to oversee their foreign branches and enforce U.S. law, including anti-money laundering requirements, this inability to produce documentation related to a troubling case again highlights the problems with U.S. banks choosing to operate in secrecy jurisdictions.

Pattern of Poor Account Management.

The Zardari case history took place during a series of critical internal and federal audits between 1992 and 1997 of the Swiss office which, during most of that time, served as the headquarters of the private bank. The shortcomings identified in the audits included policies, procedures, and problems that affected the management of the Zardari accounts. They included:

• failure of the "corporate culture" in the Swiss office to foster " 'a climate of integrity, ethical conduct and prudent risk taking' by U.S. standards";

• inadequate due diligence;

• less than acceptable internal controls;

• lack of oversight and control of third party referral agents such as Schlegelmilch; and

• inadequate monitoring of accounts;

all of which resulted in "unacceptable" internal audit ratings. In December 1995, the Swiss office received the lowest audit score received by any office in the private bank during the 1990s. These audit scores indicate the office's poor handling of the Zardari accounts was part of an ongoing pattern of poor account management.

 

[dr.umer]

Court convicted Mr. Jens Schlegelmilc (his activities are mentioned in US Senate Subcommittee report posted above) in Zardari Case in 2003.

The conviction order clearly satated

"That by taking useful means to enrich herself or enrich her husband by way of a contract concluded for the accound of the State of which she assumed the supreme direction, Benazir BHUTTO was guilty, at least, of acts relating to the unfair management of the public interests which she had the mission of defending;That nothing effectively permits the conclusion that SGS and COTECNA, for themselves, Hans FISCHER and Robert MASSEY, had consented to a sacrifice of more than USD 5 million for the sole purpose of making a donation, without compensation, to the couple BHUTTO-ZARDARI. These payments were without a doubt made in order to obtain the desired contract, in such a manner that SGS and COTECNA therein found their benefit. If Benazir BHUTTO had acted fairly, it would not be herself or her husband, but rather the State of Pakistan, which should have benefited, by example in the form of a discount on amounts billed by SGS and COTECNA, from the financial sacrifice that SGS and COTECNA were prepared to make;

That it is moreover not doubtful that the behavior of Benazir BHUTTO and her husband is criminally reprehensible in Pakistan, as evidenced by the criminal procedures undertaken in this regard and to which the recent decision by the Supreme Court does not put an end;

That the above finding dispenses the judge to examine whether the behavior of Benazir BHUTTO meets the constitutive elements of a crime of passive corruption, within the meaning of article 315a CP and the corresponding provisions of the Pakistani penal code, it being nevertheless remembered that Pakistan has always contended that the contracts concluded by Benazir BHUTTO acting for Pakistan with SGS and COTECNA on 29 September 1994 were in violation, by Benazir BHUTTO, of the duties of her office;

That until 1 May 2000, the active corruption of foreign public agents was not subject to prosecution in Switzerland, so that Jens SCHLEGELMILCH cannot be reproached in Geneva for actions relating to such a corruption; That he cannot either be blamed in Switzerland for the participation in unfair
management of the Pakistani public interest or participation in the passive corruption of Benazir BHUTTO (ATF 104 IV 239);


That on the other hand, since the unfair management of public interests is a crime and that it does not matter whether this crime was committed abroad (art. 305bis, al. 3 CP), Mr. Jens SCHLEGELMILCH may be reproached in Switzerland for having committed acts of laundering money arising from the criminal activities of Benazir BHUTTO;

Full sentencing order can be downloaded from here

 

[fatman17]

too bad our "awam" and our "jiyalas" dont understand what stealing US$ 1.5 bill of our tax money means. to them all is well is "land of the pure"!

 

[Chuba]

NO MENTION of US$ 1.5 Billion in entire report!

How did you came to calculation which reaches 1.5 Billion $ while his accounts were capped at US$ 40 MIllion and Bank refused to enhance limit to 60 Million?

Zardari's own several sugur mills, cinemas, development projects, agricultural lands and businesses even before his marriage with Ms. Bhutto. 40 Million $ is not that huge money for a top business family in Karachi.

 

[Imran Khan]

NO MENTION of US$ 1.5 Billion in entire report!

How did you came to calculation which reaches 1.5 Billion $ while his accounts were capped at US$ 40 MIllion and Bank refused to enhance limit to 60 Million?

Zardari's own several sugur mills, cinemas, development projects, agricultural lands and businesses even before his marriage with Ms. Bhutto. 40 Million $ is not that huge money for a top business family in Karachi.

very nice answer one side there is nothing any thing for a manof our country and other side people need a 20 kg bag of weat other wise they can't eat at night

 

[dr.umer]

NO MENTION of US$ 1.5 Billion in entire report!
How did you came to calculation which reaches 1.5 Billion $ while his accounts were capped at US$ 40 MIllion and Bank refused to enhance limit to 60 Million?

40m US$ traced in only one account, can be more as you may have read that swiss secrecy prevents release of actual information.

Recently an amount of 60m US$ was released from another account of Mr. Zardari when govt withdrew the cases against herself.

Also please consider that it was the amount from only CitiBank swiss accounts. This report does not mention other bank accounts.

Zardari's own several sugur mills, cinemas, development projects, agricultural lands and businesses even before his marriage with Ms. Bhutto. 40 Million $ is not that huge money for a top business family in Karachi.

Show the proof that he owned it. There are no BUSINESS deals of Mr. Zardari mentioned anywhere unless you term kickbacks as legal business commissions.

Moreover, its not a matter of 1.5 billion USD or 1.5 million USD. A single dollar or rupee or pound sterling earned by corruption that has been proved by independent international court is like sucking blood from nation, which should not be allowed.

Also estimated amount of total properties of Mr. Zardari as appeared in The Nation on April 01, 1998 is about 1.5 billion dollars. For details please click here

 

[Chuba]

40m US$ traced in only one account, can be more as you may have read that swiss secrecy prevents release of actual information.
Recently an amount of 60m US$ was released from another account of Mr. Zardari when govt withdrew the cases against herself.

Also please consider that it was the amount from only CitiBank swiss accounts. This report does not mention other bank accounts.



Show the proof that he owned it. There are no BUSINESS deals of Mr. Zardari mentioned anywhere unless you term kickbacks as legal business commissions.

Moreover, its not a matter of 1.5 billion USD or 1.5 million USD. A single dollar or rupee or pound sterling earned by corruption that has been proved by independent international court is like sucking blood from nation, which should not be allowed.

You yourself assumed that it might reach 1.5 Billion....as there is no mention in report.......intresting!

Some moderator please change the title of this thread which is completely misleading and mere a speculation which contradicts the report itself.

 

[dr.umer]

You yourself assumed that it might reach 1.5 Billion....as there is no mention in report.......intresting!

Some moderator please change the title of this thread which is completely misleading and mere a speculation which contradicts the report itself.

Well, this report is not a PPP manifesto. Thats why i have put it here. It is produced by US Senate Subcommittee. Yes mods can change the title of the thread if they wish, i agree to that part, but pal, what you have to say about the rest.

You seem to me like a Jiyala. Are you?

Ok here is some more interesting report for you.

Aitzaz says 'most' graft charges against Zardari & Benazir were justified.​

The Nation

WASHINGTON - Pakistan People's Party leader and prominent lawyer Aitzaz Ahsan says "most" allegations of corruption against Asif Ali Zardari and Benazir Bhutto were justified, but he also praises the fallen party chairperson's "courage and steadfastness".

"The type of expenses that she had and he has are not from sources of income that can be lawfully explained and accounted for," Ahsan was quoted as saying in the course of a 5,000 word article in The New York Times on the lawyers' movement and his central role in it.

This, despite the fact that Ahsan defended the couple in 14 cases, including, according to him, "corruption against both," and in Zardari's case, "kidnapping, ransom and murder." "Ahsan is almost recklessly outspoken about PPP leaders, even though they are his own political patrons," wrote James Traub, a New York Times correspondent who spent time in Pakistan earlier this year researching the story, which is published the newspaper's Sunday magazine. Traub says Ahsan "speaks admiringly of Benazir Bhutto's courage and steadfastness but also points out with disdain that she viewed herself as the PPP's 'life chairperson'. And he does not bother to conceal his dim view of Zardari."

The report says that on a flight from Karachi to Sukkur in April, Ahsan was approached by Farooq Naek, the law minister, who asked him to mute his harsh criticism of Zardari and the party. Zardari had reached an agreement with Nawaz Sharif to reinstate the judges within 30 days of the formation of the new government, and Naek implored Ahsan to show some faith and trust. Ahsan agreed to act as if he accepted their bona fides, though he did not altogether. Ahsan says he believed that Zardari feared that Chaudhry and other apolitical judges might restore some of the cases against him that had been summarily dismissed. Beyond that, Ahsan recognised, according to Traub, that the PPPP was itself a feudal and only marginally democratic body led by a figure accused of corruption and violence. Zardari, Ahsan told the correspondent "flatly", "does not want independent judges. He wants dependent judges."

Tariq Mahmood, one of the lawyer leaders, told the newspaper that US ambassador Anne Patterson suggested to him that an opening might be found for Justice Chaudhry somewhere in the international bureaucracy, something that Mahmood saw as the "offer of a bribe to the Chief Justice of Pakistan." When New York Times asked Patterson to comment, she declined. Ahsan told the newspaper, "You can't have a democracy without an independent judiciary. And you can certainly not construct a parliamentary structure on the debris of the judicial edifice." Ahsan added, "There have been corrupt and vile chief justices in the past, but he (Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry) seemed to be a prince - the prince who challenges authority, defies his executioners and was prepared to go to the gallows holding his head up."

The report quotes Stephen Cohen, author of two books on Pakistan, as admitting that he "misjudged" the country's commitment to constitutional principles. He had called Pakistan in his 2004 book an "ideological ghetto, especially as far as its liberals are concerned." He told the newspaper correspondent, "But there truly was a liberal tradition in Pakistan, buried beneath six decades of dictatorship, corruption and religious extremism. I was struck by the deep sense of embarrassment, even shame, that many Pakistanis feel over their political and economic failures, and their sense of resentment about being viewed in the West as an Islamic autocracy."

Ahsan said, "We are and very much remain a South Asian Muslim country, sharing aspirations and history with India - due process, habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari. We are not a Middle Eastern Arab Muslim country." About Ahsan's decision not to contest a by-election, Traub writes, "He had decisively chosen movement politics over party politics, and perhaps he was happiest there. Zardari and the PPP seemed to have increasingly thrown in their lot with Musharraf, appointing allies of the president to key posts. Ahsan was not worried that a new round of protests, this time directed in part at his own party, would divide the country." "There's enormous popular support for my position," Ahsan was quoted as saying. "And he was, as ever, blithe in the face of confrontation," Traub said. "I am comfortable," Ahsan told the correspondent from his home in Lahore. "I have no problem."

 

[Chuba]

LOlz.......you are intresting person, I did not expected such fun dealing with Pakistani intellectuals.

Well, I am not a Pakistani even but yes, I do have some business intrests in Pak.

I do expect you to tender a public appology from respected readers here (and I hope you will do so if you care about your own integrity)for intentionally misleading them and yourself request moderators to change title of thread, in name of decency, truth and your own credibility.

Well, this report is not a PPP manifesto. Thats why i have put it here. It is produced by US Senate Subcommittee. Yes mods can change the title of the thread if they wish, i agree to that part, but pal, what you have to say about the rest.

You seem to me like a Jiyala. Are you?

Ok here is some more interesting report for you.

 

[dr.umer]

LOlz.......you are intresting person, I did not expected such fun dealing with Pakistani intellectuals.

Well, I am not a Pakistani even but yes, I do have some business intrests in Pak.

I do expect you to tender a public appology from respected readers here (and I hope you will do so if you care about your own integrity)for intentionally misleading them and yourself request moderators to change title of thread, in name of decency, truth and your own credibility.

Cut the crap & come to the topic if you have anything to say.

Also use the spell check before you submit any post or thread.

 

[Chuba]

Cut the crap & come to the topic if you have anything to say.

Also use the spell check before you submit any post or thread.

good day ahead

 

[dr.umer]

Asif Ali Zardari: 'Mr Ten Percent' on brink of Pakistan presidency​

2 Sep 2008
Times of India

ISLAMABAD: Asif Ali Zardari was once so tainted by corruption allegations that he acquired the nickname “Mr Ten percent” among ordinary Pakistanis and beyond.

But the resulting judicial charges and political battles that saw Benazir Bhutto’s widower spend 11 years in jail will have no bearing on Saturday's presidential election here, and an amnesty last year cleared him of remaining charges.

A secret ballot of the country's two houses of parliament and four provincial assemblies is likely to see Zardari succeed Pervez Musharraf, who was forced to resign last month under threats of impeachment.

Zardari's life journey has taken him from playboy to villain to political heir of the revered Bhutto, whose image still casts a shadow over daily life here nine months after her assassination.

Among the 160 million people of nuclear-armed Pakistan, however, there are doubts over Zardari's suitability for a role that would allow him to dismiss governments and appoint leaders of the country's powerful military.

"Mr. Zardari has a controversial reputation. He has been charged, among other things, with corruption, extortion and murder," Shafqat Mahmood, a former MP and now political analyst, said.

"In the minds of many, he is neither clean nor innocent, and this is a huge drawback in his being a candidate for the highest office in the land."

Nor has Zardari overcome the view that he was heavily responsible for the ills that befell his wife as prime minister.

The 52-year-old has always maintained the cases against him were politically motivated, and none were proven.

When he married into the Bhutto dynasty in 1987, Zardari, then 31, was the little-known scion of a land-owning polo-playing family from southern Sindh province.

But he quickly carved out a powerful position for himself as a government minister, taking a keen interest in the finance and environmental portfolios.

He was among the first people arrested when his wife's governments were thrown out of office, in what remains an uncomfortable reminder of his notoriety.

The first time, in 1990, he spent three years in jail before rejoining Bhutto's second administration. But he was back behind bars within half an hour of that government's dismissal in 1996.

Zardari then spent eight years in jail -- five of them while his family lived in exile -- before being freed in November 2004 after being cleared over the last of 17 cases of corruption, murder and drug smuggling.

Bhutto's death last December propelled Zardari back into the political limelight.

After years of being frozen out by the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) led by his wife, he took control and now leads it in a fragile coalition government.

His steadfast stance at the time of Bhutto's killing seems to have placated some internal dissent. The PPP unanimously supported Zardari's candidacy while saying its approval had partly been given in tribute to the sacrifices of his wife.

Zardari's colourful past, however, could prove difficult for Pakistan.

The country is mired by Islamic militancy and has seen nearly 1,200 of its citizens die in bombings and suicide attacks in the past year, seen as a backlash against US ally Musharraf's role in the "war on terror".

"There will be people around the world asking questions about the man and it will be very embarrassing for Pakistan," said Rasul Baksh Rais, political scientist at Lahore's University of Management Sciences.

Chief among countless allegations made against Zardari is that he and his wife used the proceeds of corruption to buy a 20-bedroom luxury estate in Surrey, England.

Although they originally denied having anything to do with the property, Zardari admitted in 2004 that they were in fact the owners.

And in what remains an infamous case, Zardari was accused of conspiracy to kill Murtaza Bhutto, his brother-in-law, who died during a police shootout in Karachi in 1996. The event led to the end of his wife's second term in power.

A court cleared Zardari of the charge in April this year.

Zardari is being challenged in Saturday's election by retired chief justice Saeed-uz-Zaman Siddiqui, backed by former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, and Mushahid Hussain, a close aide of Musharraf

 

[muse]

Why should Pakistani journalists be left out of gravy train??


Zardari asks for plans to provide accommodation to journalists

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan People’s Party Co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari asked the federal government on Tuesday to plan residential apartments for journalists ‘on affordable installments’.

The ministries of Housing and Information should consult journalist organisations to devise criteria for eligibility, he said, and should ensure merit and transparency in the allotments.

After a meeting with Housing and Works Minister Haji Rehmantullah Kakar, Zardari said providing housing was an important part of the Pakistan People’s Party manifesto and that the ministry was already working on a countrywide project to build one million housing units.

He also said the media had an important role in nation-building and it was therefore the government’s responsibility to provide them with basic facilities so that they would focus on their profession. Zardari said the government believed in the independence and strengthening of the media and had already struck down media curbs imposed after the November 3, 2007 state of emergency. app