Imran Khan justifies concealing his offshore company as beneficial owner before SC

[sewlix]

اکستان تحریک انصاف کے چیئرمین عمران خان نے سپرم کورٹ میں اپنی آف شور کمپنی کے متعلق ایسا بیان داخل کروا دیا ہے کہ پانامہ کیس میں اختیار کیے گئے اپنی ہی موقف کی نفی کر دی ہے اور حکمران خاندان کی ساری مشکلیں حل کر دی ہیں۔ عمران خان نے سپریم کورٹ داخل کروائے گئے اپنے تحریری جواب میں کہا ہے کہ آف شور کمپنی کا بینفشل مالک اس کا اعلان کرنے کا پابند نہیں ہوتا کیونکہ اس کمپنی کے حصص اس مالک کے نام پر رجسٹرڈ نہیں ہوتے۔ انگریزی اخبار دی نیوز کی رپورٹ کے مطابق اپنی خفیہ آف شور کمپنی کا اعلان نہ کرنے کے باعث بطور رکن قومی اسمبلی عمران خان کی نااہلی کے لئے دائر درخواست پر چیئرمین تحریک انصاف کی جانب سے دیا جانے والا یہ جواب پاناماگیٹ میں حکمران خاندان کے لئے بڑا دفاع بن سکتا ہے اور ان کے خلاف سپریم کورٹ میںجاری مقدمے کو سرے سے ختم کر سکتا ہے کیونکہ ان کے خلاف مرکزی درخواست گزار خود عمران خان ہیں، جنہوں نے خود ہی کہہ دیا ہے کہ آف شور کمپنی کا بینیفشل مالک اپنے اثاثوں میں اسے ظاہر کرنے کا پابند نہیں ہوتا۔
عمران خان نے عدالت میں یہ جواب گزشتہ برس نومبر کے آخری ہفتے میں داخل کروایا تھا، جس میں کہا گیا تھا کہ اگر کوئی شخص
Source: http://dailypakistan.com.pk/national/26-Jan-2017/515529​

Chairman Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Imran Khan in a written reply to Supreme Court has stated that the beneficial owner of an offshore company was not bound to declare it.
Imran while justifying concealing his offshore firm took the plea that the shares were not registered in the name of the beneficial owner for offshore firms and so he did nothing wrong by not mentioning his offshore company Niazi Services.
Imran replied to a petition seeking his disqualification on the basis that he himself did not disclose his offshore company but his response can benefit his political rivals mainly Sharif family

Source link: https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/pak...fshore-company-as-beneficial-owner-before-sc/

 

[Raiwind-Destroyer]

 

[karachii]

Company is never an asset untill it has capital in it, in imran case it was his flat which he already declared and paid tax on it.

So patawaris keep calm and suppport you ***** PM...

 

[mhafeez]

Beneficial owner of an offshore company not bound to declare it, says IK in SC

Beneficial owner of an offshore company not bound to declare it, says IK in SC

ISLAMABAD: The beneficial owner of an offshore company is not bound to declare it as its shares are not registered in the name of the beneficial owner, says Imran Khan in his written response to the Supreme Court.

The PTI chief, Imran Khans, response in a petition seeking his disqualification as a parliamentarian because of non-declaration of his hidden offshore company can become the major defence for the ruling family in the Panama Papers case as the main petitioner against them is the PTI chief himself.

The PTI chief, in his response, submitted before the apex court in the last week of November that even if one is absolute owner of an offshore company, one is not bound to declare the offshore company if the shares are registered in the name of proxy directors and not registered in the owners name.

It is important that Imran Khan in his response completely avoided sharing details of the bank accounts associated with the Niazi Services Limited and the statement of accounts from 1983 to 2015, the years in which the company remained alive and continued to file returns. The PTI chief continued to insist that only one asset was linked with his offshore company but shied away from discussing bank accounts and bank statements. Despite repeated promises with The News to provide details of bank accounts of Niazi Services Limited by the PTI through its spokesman, the PTI always hesitated to share details of bank accounts of Niazi Services.

It is also important that in majority of cases, the offshore company is not directly registered in the name of the actual owner and shares of the company are issued in the name of fake or proxy directors.

Usually, people take help from some financial services providing agencies to set up offshore companies and these agencies also provide proxy or fake directors for the offshore companies to be established. Record of beneficial ownership is maintained separately and is kept secret. In some cases, shares of offshore companies are issued in the name of directors, nominee directors of director companies.

Imran Khan, who has already admitted owning an offshore company Niazi Services Limited, while submitting the written response to the petition seeking his disqualification stated before the apex court that though he was the absolute owner of the offshore company yet he was not the registered shareholder of nine shares of Niazi Services Limited, there was no mandatory, substantive or binding obligation to even make a disclosure.

Para-7 of Facts given in the response of Imran Khan (answering respondent) reads: Since purchase of property in the UK is undertaken through solicitors, the answering respondent was advised that the London apartment be placed in the name of a juridical entity with the answering respondent remaining its sole beneficial owner, having paid the entire sale price. Consequently, Niazi Services Limited (NSL) was incorporated with a total subscribed capital of GBP9 and its only asset was the London apartment, whose absolute owner was the answering respondent. 3 shares each were held by three other companies who submitted the requisite returns.

Whereas the para-5 of the preliminary objections given in response by Imran Khan (answering respondent) reads: The allegations and averments of non-declaration of offshore company or its intentional, wilful concealment is totally misconceived. The only asset under NSL being the London apartment was sold in April 2003. The total issued share capital of NSL was GBP9 which was not held in the name of the answering respondent. Once the only asset was sold, the NSL existed on paper only, without any asset. Since the answering respondent was not the registered shareholders of the 9 shares (of GBP1 each) of NSL, there was no mandatory, substantive or binding obligation to even make a disclosure.

In the ongoing Panama case in the Supreme Court against the Sharif family, currently it is being argued if Hussain Nawaz or Maryam Nawaz is the beneficial owner of the offshore companies Nielsen and Nescoll. However, for either case, the registered shares of offshore companies are in the name of proxy directors (of Minerva Financial Services) and hence according to the logic of PTI chairman and the stance taken by him before the apex court, it is not mandatory to declare the offshore companies. Investigations are needed to ascertain the correctness of claims but the stance taken and pressed by the PTI chief regarding non-declaration can destroy his case in the apex court.

https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/18...company-not-bound-to-declare-it-says-IK-in-SC

 

[Two Stooges]

Re: Beneficial owner of an offshore company not bound to declare it, says IK in SC

Aik Nasli aur Asli Patwari ki Breaking NEWS !

 

[SpIDeR.]

Re: Beneficial owner of an offshore company not bound to declare it, says IK in SC

aby tum log kitna mix ker dety ho batao'n ko... panashreeef sai money trail manga hai kyun k Mariyum panamashreeef dependent hai NS k or baki bacho nai jaidad kasye banai panamashref k us k money trail do.. or paisa mulk sai bahir kasy gya wo batao is simple or apni jan churwao SC sai or IK sai.. awei idher udher ki batain ly k batih jaty hu..

 

[Raiwind-Destroyer]

Re: Beneficial owner of an offshore company not bound to declare it, says IK in SC

 

[miafridi]

Apnay naam par declare karnay ka paband nahi hota, Lakin jab koi ap say kahay k kiya ap falaah ofshore company k beneficial owner hai aur ap kahay k nahi Meri toh Offshore kiya Pakistan main bhi koi jaedaad nahi toh aesa shakhs mujrim zarur hota hai...

Agar aesa hai bhi toh Is case say Panama k case ka difaah nahi ho sakta...

 

[Will_Bite]

Re: Beneficial owner of an offshore company not bound to declare it, says IK in SC

The PTI chief, Imran Khan’s, response in a petition seeking his disqualification as a parliamentarian because of non-declaration of his hidden offshore company can become the major defence for the ruling family in the Panama Papers case as the main petitioner against them is the PTI chief himself.

The above line is hilarious. How can it be a defense for Sharifs when this is not even the original allegation on them?
The allegation on Sharifs is not whether they own offshore companies and UK properties or not. Everyone knows that they do own them.
The allegation is that the money they used to finance the purchase of those properties was stolen from Pakistan, and laundered to the UK. Both are financial crimes. Holding a property is not.

 

[mhafeez]

Re: Beneficial owner of an offshore company not bound to declare it, says IK in SC

 

[mhafeez]

Re: Beneficial owner of an offshore company not bound to declare it, says IK in SC

The above line is hilarious. How can it be a defense for Sharifs when this is not even the original allegation on them?
The allegation on Sharifs is not whether they own offshore companies and UK properties or not. Everyone knows that they do own them.
The allegation is that the money they used to finance the purchase of those properties was stolen from Pakistan, and laundered to the UK. Both are financial crimes. Holding a property is not.[/COLOR]

Mis-Deceleration is also a crime and PM is facing the same case of Mis-Deceleration.

 

[pak-pak]

Re: Beneficial owner of an offshore company not bound to declare it, says IK in SC

tabdeeli aa nahi rahi tabdeeli aagayi hai[hilar]

 

[miafridi]

Re: Beneficial owner of an offshore company not bound to declare it, says IK in SC

Yeah they might not be bound to disclose that they are beneficial owner, but it becomes a criminal offence when you have an offshore company but say that no "I don't even have any assets in Pakistan let alone an offshore company"..

Wese bhi tumhi thay na jis ne ICIJ k baaray main False news di thi is forum par k unho ne apnay reporter k khilaf investigation start ki hai. And now you are coming with this news which is taking Imran khan's reply out of context and twisted it only to get political benefit, because in court this same statement in full context won't affect Sharif family case.... LOLZZZz..

 

[Will_Bite]

Re: Beneficial owner of an offshore company not bound to declare it, says IK in SC

Mis-Deceleration is also a crime and PM is facing the same case of Mis-Deceleration.

There is a very specific law regarding declaration of overseas holdings, which I have narrated several times on these forums.
Overseas property, or overseas business, bought with money earned overseas, does not have to be declared in Pakistan.
Overseas property, or overseas business, bought with money earned in Pakistan, HAS to be declared in Pakistan.

The conundrum Sharif family has right now is exactly that. Why do you think they are trying so hard to establish the lie that the money was earned in the middle east?
IK's apartment on the other hand, was bought with money earned overseas, and was not declarable in FBR. He declared it only when he sold it and remitted the money back home.

 

[WatanDost]

Re: Beneficial owner of an offshore company not bound to declare it, says IK in SC

Whereas the para-5 of the preliminary objections given in response by Imran Khan (answering respondent) reads

: The allegations and averments of non-declaration of offshore company or its intentional, wilful concealment is totally misconceived.

The only asset under NSL being the London apartment was sold in April 2003.

The total issued share capital of NSL was GBP9 which was not held in the name of the answering respondent.

Once the only asset was sold, the NSL existed on paper only, without any asset.

Since the answering respondent was not the registered shareholders of the 9 shares (of GBP1 each) of NSL, there was no mandatory, substantive or binding obligation to even make a disclosure.


Chal Nikal Lai PATWARI

 

[miafridi]

Re: Beneficial owner of an offshore company not bound to declare it, says IK in SC

Mis-Deceleration is also a crime and PM is facing the same case of Mis-Deceleration.

Correction please. PM is not only facing misdeclaration, but also lying in parliament, and money laundering plus corruption charges..

 

[amir_ali]

Re: Beneficial owner of an offshore company not bound to declare it, says IK in SC

If IK really want NS or MNS out of politics and is not power hungry, he should plead guilty in this case. He will be disqualified, but his disqualification will also provide solid ground for disqualification of NS or his family. :)

 

[WatanDost]

Re: Beneficial owner of an offshore company not bound to declare it, says IK in SC

tabdeeli aa nahi rahi tabdeeli aagayi hai[hilar]

Pak Pak Pakaak urf Paka Patwari
ki
CHAWALIAN

 

[mhafeez]

Re: Beneficial owner of an offshore company not bound to declare it, says IK in SC

There is a very specific law regarding declaration of overseas holdings, which I have narrated several times on these forums.
Overseas property, or overseas business, bought with money earned overseas, does not have to be declared in Pakistan.
Overseas property, or overseas business, bought with money earned in Pakistan, HAS to be declared in Pakistan.

The conundrum Sharif family has right now is exactly that. Why do you think they are trying so hard to establish the lie that the money was earned in the middle east?
IK's apartment on the other hand, was bought with money earned overseas, and was not declarable in FBR. He declared it only when he sold it and remitted the money back home.

شریف خاندان بھی تو یہی کہ رہا ہے کہ اس نے پیسے پاکستان سے نہیں بھیجے بلکہ باہر سے کما کر باہر ہی جائیداد بنائی ، انہیں باہر پیسے کمانے کے ثبوت پیش کرنے کا کہا جا رہا ہے ، نیازی صاحب کیسے مبرا ہیں؟؟

آپ انکم ٹیکس قوانین کی بات کر رہے ہیں ، جبکہ میں پبلک ریپریزنٹیٹو ایکٹ کی بات کر رہا ہوں جسکے تحت آپکو اندرون ملک اور بیرون ملک تمام اثاثوں کا بتانا ہوتا ہے ، اگر جتنی بات آپ بتا رہے ہیں اتنی ہی ہوتی تو عمران خان ڈھائی سال سے سٹے کے پیچھے نہ چھپ رہا ہوتا ایک اور کیس میں

 

[pak-pak]

Re: Beneficial owner of an offshore company not bound to declare it, says IK in SC

شریف خاندان بھی تو یہی کہ رہا ہے کہ اس نے پیسے پاکستان سے نہیں بھیجے بلکہ باہر سے کما کر باہر ہی جائیداد بنائی ، انہیں باہر پیسے کمانے کے ثبوت پیش کرنے کا کہا جا رہا ہے ، نیازی صاحب کیسے مبرا ہیں؟؟

آپ انکم ٹیکس قوانین کی بات کر رہے ہیں ، جبکہ میں پبلک ریپریزنٹیٹو ایکٹ کی بات کر رہا ہوں جسکے تحت آپکو اندرون ملک اور بیرون ملک تمام اثاثوں کا بتانا ہوتا ہے ، اگر جتنی بات آپ بتا رہے ہیں اتنی ہی ہوتی تو عمران خان ڈھائی سال سے سٹے کے پیچھے نہ چھپ رہا ہوتا ایک اور کیس میں

Yes 1000000% agree