LAHORE: A special court in Lahore on Tuesday granted exemption from court appearance to the prime minister in a money laundering case registered against him and members of his family.
Shehbaz Sharif and his family are facing charges of money laundering of billions of rupees using accounts operated in the name of their businesses and employees, according to the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA).
The agency has nominated Sharif and his sons — Hamza and Suleman Shehbaz — as the principal accused in the case. 14 others have been named in the first information report (FIR) under sections 5(2) and 5(3) (criminal misconduct) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, read with 3-4 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act.
At the start of the hearing, Sharif’s counsel submitted a plea seeking exemption from the appearance, citing the engagement of the prime minister in the business of the state.
The counsel pleaded with the court to grant a one-day exemption to Sharif from the court appearance which was accepted by the court.
In the last hearing, Sharif told the court that he, in his capacity as the chief minister of Punjab, made decisions that, contrary to the charges against him, “hurt” his family’s sugar business.
Special Judge (Central-1) Ijaz Hassan Awan directed lawyers on Tuesday to complete their arguments on acquittal applications of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and his son, Hamza Shehbaz in a money laundering case registered by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA).
The Special Judge (Central-1) conducted the case proceedings, wherein Hamza Shehbaz appeared and got his attendance marked. However, after sometime, the court allowed him to leave the courtroom.
Advocate Amjad Pervaiz, on behalf of the prime minister, submitted an exemption application and pleaded with the court to exempt his client from personal appearance for one-day, as he had some crucial official engagements.
The court questioned the FIA prosecutor about the number of accounts opened in the name of Malik Maqsood.
FIA Prosecutor Farooq Bajwa submitted that eight accounts had been opened in the name of Malik Maqsood, adding that all those details were available in the challan.
He submitted that as per record, neither the money was transferred in accounts of Shehbaz Sharif and Hamza Sharif directly nor it was withdrawn from their accounts directly.
Hamza Shehbaz’s counsel advanced his arguments during the proceedings on acquittal application of his client, saying that there was no allegation of kick-backs or corruption. He submitted that the bankers had been excluded from the case by the FIA, adding that they were neither accused nor witnesses in the matter.
He submitted that the investigations into the case were done before the government change and statements of people were recorded on political basis. He submitted that all investigations were carried out by the investigation team of the previous government. He submitted that no witness had given the name of Shehbaz Sharif or Hamza Shehbaz, adding that if such a statement emerged, then he would leave the courtroom.
At this stage, the FIA prosecutor submitted that Hamza Shehbaz was a shareholder and owner of Ramzan Sugar Mills. To which, the court questioned what was the evidence that the money was transferred on the orders of Hamza Shehbaz.
The prosecutor replied that the agency did not have any evidence in that regard.
Amjad Pervaiz submitted that the people whose accounts were opened, said that they did not know where the money came from. However, the prosecutor submitted that the account holders admitted it, adding that the Ramzan Sugar Mills administration used to operate account of deceased Gulzar. The court questioned the prosecutor whether he could give all these details in writing.
Prosecutor Farooq Bajwa submitted that he had not been directed to give a written statement in the matter, adding that he could assist the court as per available record.
At this, the court questioned FIA prosecutor about the verbal evidence.
However, Amjad Pervaiz submitted that out of 66 witnesses, no one had accused Shehbaz Sharif or Hamza Shehbaz. He submitted that the challan was completed in the previous government’s tenure, adding that allegations could be leveled as political narrative but the court was bound to decide the case on evidence. He further submitted that Shehbaz Sharif was neither director nor shareholder of Ramzan Sugar Mills. No amount was transferred in the accounts of Shehbaz Sharif from Ramzan Sugar Mills accounts, from 2008 to 2018, adding that the high court quashed an identical case of Moonis Elahi. He also submitted a copy of Moonis Elahi’s case in the court.
Amjad Pervaiz further argued that the state was complainant in the case of Moonis Elahi as well as the current case. He submitted that no damage was done to the government exchequer or bank and any other persons. It was a case of political narrative and such a case could not be proceeded even for one day, he added. He submitted that the National Accountability Bureau had also made a similar case against the Shehbaz Sharif family.
Subsequently, the court adjourned further proceedings till October 12 and directed the parties to conclude their arguments, besides allowing exemption application of the prime minister.
Reference Mainly Accused Sharif Family
The reference mainly accused Sharif of being a beneficiary of assets held in the name of his family members and benamidars, who had no sources to acquire such assets.
It said the members and benamidars of the Shehbaz family received fake foreign remittances of billions in their personal bank accounts. In addition to these remittances, the bureau said, billions of rupees were laundered by way of foreign pay orders, which were deposited in the personal bank accounts of Sharif’s two sons.
The reference further said that the family of Shehbaz failed to justify the sources of funds used for the acquisition of assets.
It said the suspects committed offences of corruption and corrupt practices as envisaged under the provisions of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, and money laundering as delineated in the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010. It asked the trial court to try the suspects and punish them under the law.
