PTI given a week to submit reply over ‘ghost donors’

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought a reply within one week from the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) to the allegations of receiving funds from ‘ghost donors’.

PML-N’s Hanif Abbasi, through his counsel Akram Sheikh, moved a miscellaneous application in the apex court on Monday, wherein he highlighted that 124 ghost donors — 80 corporations, 23 people believed to be Indians, and 21 other foreigners – had donated to the PTI-LLC California.

And in the case of PTI-LLC Texas, the number of ghost donors was 10, 195 corporations, 18 possible Indian nationals and 21 other foreigners. He contended that a chartered accountant in his report has not given a clean chit to the PTI on acquiring funds through ‘prohibited sources’.
The application states that PTI Chairman Imran Khan had disclosed that the loan acquired by him for the purchase of his London flats was allegedly returned to his ex-wife Jemima Khan and that it was paid back to her from the account of the Niazi Services Limited through a cheque amounting to GBP 562,415.54.

Through the application, the PML-N leader has requested the Supreme Court to direct the PTI chief to produce the statement of accounts of the Niazi Services Limited from its opening till date.

The application states: “A company having funds in millions, in order to pay off Mr Imran Khan’s debts and is being used for pursuing all activities, could not be named merely a shell company and the non-disclosure of such asset goes to the root of the matter in hand.

“Therefore, it is in accordance with law as well as equity, and also in continuation with the soul and spirit of the order dated 9.5.2017 and the subsequent order to produce the money trail that the summoning of this bank record is sine qua non.

“What is more important are the sources from where GBP 117,500 funds were allegedly generated by Imran Khan, who alleges to have acquired the same through playing cricket on which taxes were paid both in Australia and London; yet no record of payment of any payments or any taxes paid thereon in London and Australia, has been provided. Therefore, it raises a big question mark as to where the seed money for the purchase of the flat in 1983 came from?”

The PML-N leader stated that Imran has claimed that the balance funds from the sale of the flat in 2003 after repaying the ‘loan of Jemima’ were brought by him to Pakistan. “The specific means of bringing the large amount of funds to Pakistan (apparently in excess of Rs10 million) have not been fully disclosed,” he added.

PTI told to submit financial records by May 30

“However, it is claimed that these funds were brought to Pakistan, therefore, Imran is required to produce his 2003 Income Tax Returns to confirm the declaration of such funds having been brought to Pakistan and duly declared by him.”

Abbasi asked the Supreme Court that “accounts from the Citibank NA may also be requisitioned in order to establish the authenticity of the transfer of money to Rashid Khan [PTI’s agent] from Jamima”.

Hearing the arguments, a three-judge bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, gave the PTI one week to come up with reply to the queries contained in Abbasi’s application.

Meanwhile, the bench once again asked Naeem Bukhari, the PTI chief’s counsel, to satisfy the court over the money trail regarding the purchase of his 300 kanals of land in Bani Gala near Islamabad.

“If you fail to provide the money trial leading up to the purchase of land, can you foresee the consequences for the respondent [Imran Khan]?” the bench posed a question to Imran’s counsel.

To this, the counsel sought more time to produce a complete record of bank transactions leading to the purchase of the land. “We hope we will get it and it will be placed before the bench soon,” Bukhari told the bench.

He further informed the bench that all records of Imran’s income tax payments would also be placed before the court in a sealed envelope.

Bukhari also argued that the Bani Gala land had been transferred to Jemima before the couple got divorced. He wondered why a third party was raising questions when Jemima and Imran had no issues regarding the purchase and transfer of the land.

“There is no public money involved in the transaction of the amount regarding the purchase of Bani Gala land,” the counsel said, rejecting the PML-N’s allegations of money laundering.

Meanwhile, the CJP observed that the Tax Amnesty Scheme 2000 was introduced for ordinary people and not politicians. “We are keenly examining each matter and have started getting a better understanding of it,” Justice Nisar remarked.

The bench also sought a reply from the ECP regarding the PTI’s objection to the commission’s jurisdiction to determine the party’s foreign funding issue.

Source: The Express Tribune