کتیا تجھے ٨ گنا کا بھی بتاؤں گا -- تو بتا پہلے اپنی اچھی انگریزی سے
Q5.9(b)
پڑھ کر کیا سمجھا ہے
Yaar mera kitna waqt barbad kiya hai tuj chawal ne is bewaqoofi ke peechay. chal thuje saada English mein koshish kerta houn, teray pallay to phir bhi kuch nahi parde ga, lekin shayad koi aur is thread ko pard raha ho, us ke liye.
To get the correct picture we have to start from the begining of section 5 and not just read out of context point and make your conclusions
Section 5 = Expert Evidence
5.1 : Introduces the expert witnesses from Broadsheet- Mr Larocca and Mr Markewitz who produced the Expert Report of their firm, Stroz Friedberg
the SF Report
5.2 : Introduces the expert witnesses from NAB- Mr. Mark Bezant and Mr. Yaser Dajani
5.3 : Broadsheet witnesses who produced the SF report were only concerned with sharif family and JIT report. NAB side Mr Bezant only discussed the SF report specifically the identification and valuation of relevant assets in the report. Dajani on issues relating to asset recovery, its costs and aspects of broadsheet
5.4 : Stroz Friedberg was instructed to carry out a ‘forensic audit’ (or ‘inventory’) of the JIT Report identify assets and put a value on them. In short they came up with 76 items with a value of $820 million and with various calculation they said Broadsheet should be paid $304 million
5.5 : irrelevant here
5.6 : Bezant disputed the SF figures
1 : He said assets in Pakistan should not be on the list ( judge thinks otherwise)
2: Bezant said SF had double counted 4 items on the list which added extra 41 million
3 : SF failed to consider liabilities on these assets
4: the list of 76 items of property included funds no longer held by, or no longer recoverable from the Sharif Family, affecting up to 69 of the 76 items in the SF list and as much as 98% of the total value.
5: That any recovery made would be of an amount far less than stated value
6: Lastly Bezant said broadsheets award should be only in the range of $0.6 to $2.1 million
5.7 Dajani made arguments that it would not be possible to to have recovery at full value mentioned in the SF report, on why that is, I will not mention here as it is irrelevant to the matter at hand here.
5.8 Dajani further made arguments on on-going costs of broadsheet and what should be that figure.
5.9 : Now Judge makes his remarks
a)Judge agrees with NAB side that it is not possible to make recovery of assets at full value as listed in the report
b)Judge says the SF report does not list current assets held by the Sharif Family but a list of assets they have held over the past 20 years. One result of doing this the
Pakistani side says THE SF REPORT may include both the funds used to purchase a property asset, and the property asset itself; or the value of shares in a property owning company as well as the property it owns; or the value of a property that has been sold together with the value of other property bought with the proceeds; and more simply, it may include funds which have been dispersed or ‘spent’ whether on the acquisition of other property or, as was suggested in evidence, in a casino where it may or may not have been recouped by later winnings.
Hun kuj samaj aai dungara? It is NAB's witnesses that are saying that the SF report has listed assets held over a period of 20 years and not what they currently have now and because of this money to buy a property and then that property and then money from the sale of property so on and so forth is being counted more than once and inflating the figure.
THIS IS THE SF REPORT NOT THE JIT REPORT.
And the main aim here was for Pakistani side to dismiss broadsheets claim and pay as little as possible or preferably nothing at all, so they will make any and all arguments to get that done.