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

[Will_Bite]

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

Sharif family's story is full of holes, which is why they are in a conundrum. If they admit that they sent the money from Pakistan (which they did), then they are guilty of money laundering at the very least. All of their claims of making money overseas have fallen flat on their face so far. Dubai mill? ended in a loss. Jeddah mill? ended in a loss. So where did the money come from then?
As for IK, he is not immune to investigation. But it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out where he made his money. He was an employee of 2 different county teams in the 70s and 80s. Yeh hain huzoor woh zaraye.....

And I tried hard to see where in the public representation act it says that you have to declare overseas property even if bought with overses money.

 

[mhafeez]

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

Sharif family's story is full of holes, which is why they are in a conundrum. If they admit that they sent the money from Pakistan (which they did), then they are guilty of money laundering at the very least. All of their claims of making money overseas have fallen flat on their face so far. Dubai mill? ended in a loss. Jeddah mill? ended in a loss. So where did the money come from then?
As for IK, he is not immune to investigation. But it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out where he made his money. He was an employee of 2 different county teams in the 70s and 80s. Yeh hain huzoor woh zaraye.....

And I tried hard to see where in the public representation act it says that you have to declare overseas property even if bought with overses money.

اس میں یہ کہاں لکھا ہے کہ جو اثاثے آپ نے باہر کی کمائی سے باہر ہی بنائے وہ ظاہر نہیں کرنے ، اس میں لکھا ہے آپ کے ، آپ کی بیوی اور آپکے زیر کفالت تمام افراد کے تمام اثاثے ظاہر کریں ، یہ اور وہ والے کا سوال ہی نہیں

12. Nomination for election.
--
(1) Any elector of a constituency may propose or second the name of any
duly qualified person to be a member for that constituency.
7[(2) Every nomination shall be made by a separate nomination paper in the prescribed form
which shall be si
gned both by the proposer and the seconder and shall, on solemn affirmation
made and signed by the candidate, accompany
(a) a declaration that he has consented to the nomination and that he fulfils the qualifications
specified in Article 62 and is not sub
ject to any of the disqualifications specified in Article 63 or
any other law for the time being in force for being elected as a member;
(b) 8[****] Omitted.
(c) a declaration that no loan for an amount of two million rupees or more, obtained from any
ba
nk, financial institution, cooperative society or corporate body in his own name or in the name
of his spouse or any of his dependents, or any business concern mainly owned by him or the
aforesaid, stands unpaid for more than one year from the due date, or
has got such loan written
off;
(d) a declaration that he, his spouse or any of his dependents or a business concern mainly
owned by him or the aforesaid, is not in default in payment of government dues or utility charges,
including telephone, electricity
, gas and water charges of an amount in excess of ten thousand
rupees, for over six months, at the time of filing of nomination papers;
(e) a statement specifying his educational qualifications, occupation, National Identity Card
number and National Tax N
umber, if any, alongwith attested copies thereof; and
(f) a statement of his assets and liabilities and those of his spouse and dependents on the
prescribed form as on the preceding thirtieth day of June;
Explanation.
-
For the purpose of this section, the
expression
(i) "loan " shall mean any loan, advance, credit or finance obtained or written off on or after the
31st day of December,1985,but shall not include the loan the recovery of which has been stayed
or suspended by any order of a court or tribunal
, including the High Court and the Supreme Court
;
(ii) "mainly owned " shall mean holding or controlling a majority interest in a business concern ;
(iii) "taxes " include all taxes levied by Federal Government, Provincial Government or a local
governme
nt, but shall not include taxes the recovery of which has been stayed or suspended by
any order of a court or tribunal;
(iv) "government dues and utility charges " shall, inter alia, include rent, charges of rest houses or
lodges owned by the Federal Gove
rnment, Provincial Governments, local
governments or
corporations established or controlled by such governments, but shall not include the
government dues and utilities charges the recovery of which has been stayed or suspended by
any order of a court or
tribunal.]
(3) Every nomination paper shall be delivered to the Returning Officer by candidate or by his proposer or
seconder or, if so authorized in writing by the candidate, by his nominee, and the Returning Officer shall
acknowledge receipt of the nomi
nation paper specifying the date and time of receipt.
(4) A person may be nominated in the same constituency by not more than five nomination papers.

28[42A.Yearly submission of statements of assets and liabilities.
(1)Every member shall, on a form prescribed under clause (f)of sub
-
section (2)of section 12,submit a
statement of assets and liabilities of his own, his spo
use and dependents annually to the Commission by
the thirtieth day of September each year.
(2) The statements of assets and liabilities submitted under sub
-
section (1)shall be published in the
official Gazette and copies thereof may be obtained on payment
of prescribed fee.
(3) The Commissioner shall, by the fifteenth day of October each year; notify the names of the members
who fail to file statements of assets and liabilities within the period specified in sub
-
section (1)and by an
order, direct that suc
h member shall cease to function till such statement is submitted.
(4) Where a member submits the statement of assets and liabilities under sub
-
section (1) which is found
to be false in material particulars, he may be proceeded against under section 82 fo
r committing the
offence of corrupt practice.]

 

[Pakistan2017]

issue is not that who is beneficiary of off-shore company. Issue is that whether the property bought through that off-shore company is legal or ill gotten.

 

[ahameed]

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

In case ik what he didnt declare when there was no assets held by the offshore company???

Mis

 

[mhafeez]

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

In case ik what he didnt declare when there was no assets held by the offshore company???

Mis

He should prove this with relevant documents i.e. bank accounts and bank statements.

 

[Will_Bite]

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

اس میں یہ کہاں لکھا ہے کہ جو اثاثے آپ نے باہر کی کمائی سے باہر ہی بنائے وہ ظاہر نہیں کرنے ، اس میں لکھا ہے آپ کے ، آپ کی بیوی اور آپکے زیر کفالت تمام افراد کے تمام اثاثے ظاہر کریں ، یہ اور وہ والے کا سوال ہی نہیں

12. Nomination for election.

Your explanation is perfectly in line with Sharif's strategy of tossing the ball so far away that people forget what game they are playing.
First of all, its absurd that these accusations/allegations would come out only after Panama pressure deepens.

Secondly, if according to the letter of the law, IK has committed a crime, he must pay for it.

Thirdly, the peoples rep act clearly mentions the need for NTN number to be furbished along with asset and tax details. Their interest and scope is limited to taxable assets...and overseas property that is purchased using overseas sources is not taxable. Not sure how many times I have repeated that. But since it is PMLN strategy to toss the ball miles away after every attack on their goal, your response is perfectly in line with that. i admit that PMLN has done a good job with muddling up the vision of the supreme court...and PTI has repeatedly fallen into the trap of trying to answer mundane and meaningless questions, which are doing nothing but pushing the goal post farther and farther......whereas the basic question remains....

What was the source of the money, and how did the money leave Pakistan? Its embarrassing that in order to protect their personal money laundering, they have deployed the entire political party to launch below the belt strikes, assuming PTI would keep over like PPP used to.

 

[karachii]

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.

Chaalo theek hai, kerdo donon ko disquilify.

 

[ahameed]

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

Sir kis ilzaam ke jawab mein proof dy, uspe to flat ke elawa kissi asset ka ilzam hi nahi hy????

He should prove this with relevant documents i.e. bank accounts and bank statements.

 

[Humble]

IK's Stance can Damage Panama Case Hearing

ISLAMABAD Chairman Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Imran Khan has stated in a written reply to Supreme Court that he was not bound to declare that he was a beneficial owner of an offshore company.

Imran, while justifying concealing his offshore firm, took the stance 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.
This statement was made in reply 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 who are presently under scrutiny by the apex court pertaining to alleged offshore firms owned by Maryam Nawaz.

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, Imran said in his response submitted in November.Imran demands Sharif family to present money trail and details of bank accounts but on the other hand, he himself avoided sharing details of bank accounts operated by Niazi Services that was in service from 1983 to 2015.

According to a report by The News, the cricketer turned politician failed to provide details regarding bank accounts to the leading daily, despite a commitment by the partys spokesperson.In the majority of cases, offshore companies are 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, business tycoons 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 under the wraps. In some cases, shares of offshore companies are issued in the name of directors and nominee directors.Imran while admitting his offshore Niazi Services Limited replied 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.
Paragraph 7 of Facts given in the response of Imran Khan (answering respondent) reads: Since

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. Three shares each were held by three other companies who submitted the requisite returns.

Paragraph 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, willful 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.

What can add an element of interest to the sub-judice Panama case in the Supreme Court against the Sharif family is Imrans agreement with the opinion that beneficial owner does not need to declare the offshore firm.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) which means that, according to the logic of the PTI chairman and the stance taken by him before the apex court, it is not mandatory for Nawaz Sharifs children to declare the offshore companies.

The stance opted by PTI chief regarding non-declaration can dent his Panama case in the apex court as the Sharif family can simply take the same stance forward to convince the larger bench of their clean financial background.Haneef Abbasi of PML-N had in November last year filed a petition seeking disqualification of Imran Khan on the basis that he concealed his offshore firms in his statement of assets and liabilities submitted to the ECP while filing his nomination papers for contesting different general elections, including that of 2013.

Source:

 

[abdullah.drs]

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

Mr IK offshore doesn't hold any capital and when a company has no worth it is not mentioned as it holds no assets... In case of PM family their offshore companies hold billions in capital and Uk flats so the assets need to b declared...

 

[abdullah.drs]

In case ik what he didnt declare when there was no assets held by the offshore company???

He should prove this with relevant documents i.e. bank accounts and bank statements.

He has already given all the receipts. bk in 80s he bought a flat in UK, submitted the receipts of his county income with which he bought the flat.. Submitted the transaction copy of his flat sale in 2002..in 2002 elections his Uk flat was declared in his assets.. Once sold how can he show that flat in his assets? Any common sense u have or I m wasting my time on a patwari?

 

[mhafeez]

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

Sir kis ilzaam ke jawab mein proof dy, uspe to flat ke elawa kissi asset ka ilzam hi nahi hy????

He has already given all the receipts. bk in 80s he bought a flat in UK, submitted the receipts of his county income with which he bought the flat.. Submitted the transaction copy of his flat sale in 2002..in 2002 elections his Uk flat was declared in his assets.. Once sold how can he show that flat in his assets? Any common sense u have or I m wasting my time on a patwari?

صرف فلیٹ ہی نہیں ایک کمپنی بھی تھی نیازی سروسز کے نام سے ،کمپنی کی پروفائل میں لکھا ہے کہ وہ سپورٹس گڈز بیچنے اور سپورٹس سے متعلق ماہرانہ سروسز فراہم کرنے کا کاروبار کرتے ہیں ، خان صاحب اس کاروبار سے متعلق دستاویزات برائے آمدنی و اخراجات برطانیہ میں جمع کرواتے ہیں لیکن پاکستان میں چھپاتے ہیں ، اثاثے چھپانے پر نااہلی کے کیس کا سامنا ہے خان صاحب کو

امید ہے تسلی ہو گئی ہو گی

 

[rtabasum2]

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

صرف فلیٹ ہی نہیں ایک کمپنی بھی تھی نیازی سروسز کے نام سے ،کمپنی کی پروفائل میں لکھا ہے کہ وہ سپورٹس گڈز بیچنے اور سپورٹس سے متعلق ماہرانہ سروسز فراہم کرنے کا کاروبار کرتے ہیں ، خان صاحب اس کاروبار سے متعلق دستاویزات برائے آمدنی و اخراجات برطانیہ میں جمع کرواتے ہیں لیکن پاکستان میں چھپاتے ہیں ، اثاثے چھپانے پر نااہلی کے کیس کا سامنا ہے خان صاحب کو

امید ہے تسلی ہو گئی ہو گی

So IK is corrupt...........does that absolve PM of his corruption charges???????......Punish the corrupt whether PM or Imran.....U think we will support Imran for corruption??

 

[ahameed]

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

اثاثے چھپانے

Sir konse asasay hy flat ke elawa????

صرف فلیٹ ہی نہیں ایک کمپنی بھی تھی نیازی سروسز کے نام سے ،کمپنی کی پروفائل میں لکھا ہے کہ وہ سپورٹس گڈز بیچنے اور سپورٹس سے متعلق ماہرانہ سروسز فراہم کرنے کا کاروبار کرتے ہیں ، خان صاحب اس کاروبار سے متعلق دستاویزات برائے آمدنی و اخراجات برطانیہ میں جمع کرواتے ہیں لیکن پاکستان میں چھپاتے ہیں ، اثاثے چھپانے پر نااہلی کے کیس کا سامنا ہے خان صاحب کو

امید ہے تسلی ہو گئی ہو گی

 

[mhafeez]

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

So IK is corrupt...........does that absolve PM of his corruption charges???????......Punish the corrupt whether PM or Imran.....U think we will support Imran for corruption??

No, if IK is corrupt than it does not absolve PM of his corruption charges but if you give favor to IK than you should also give favor to PM in the same coin.

 

[mhafeez]

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

Sir konse asasay hy flat ke elawa????




خدا آپ پر رحم کرے

 

[rtabasum2]

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

No, if IK is corrupt than it does not absolve PM of his corruption charges but if you give favor to IK than you should also give favor to PM in the same coin.

Who said anything about favours............rule of law should be same for everybody.........this is what we are crying about

 

[mhafeez]

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

Who said anything about favours............rule of law should be same for everybody.........this is what we are crying about

What would be your reaction if NS would have taken same sort of defence in SC??

 

[abdullah.drs]

صرف فلیٹ ہی نہیں ایک کمپنی بھی تھی نیازی سروسز کے نام سے ،کمپنی کی پروفائل میں لکھا ہے کہ وہ سپورٹس گڈز بیچنے اور سپورٹس سے متعلق ماہرانہ سروسز فراہم کرنے کا کاروبار کرتے ہیں ، خان صاحب اس کاروبار سے متعلق دستاویزات برائے آمدنی و اخراجات برطانیہ میں جمع کرواتے ہیں لیکن پاکستان میں چھپاتے ہیں ، اثاثے چھپانے پر نااہلی کے کیس کا سامنا ہے خان صاحب کو

امید ہے تسلی ہو گئی ہو گی

Ur constant lies won't make a difference. The Niazi Services total worth was 9 pounds once flat got sold and company went dormant. The one and only transaction done by that company was the purcahse and selling of UK flat. All declared in IK returns till 2002..jab flat he na raha tau kia mian sahab Kay flats udhar lay Kay assets main show krta? Umeed hai aap ki jahalat main kami waqaya hoi hogi

 

[ahameed]

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

خدا آپ پر رحم کرے

sir g DANDI na mary, aur batay keh us offshore company ka flat ke elawa konsa asset tha ya hy???