+ A
A -
DAWN NEWS
ISLAMABAD
AS THE Supreme Court's hearing of the Panamagate case resumed on Tuesday, the bench inquired into the investigative steps that were taken by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and the Federal Board of Revenue after the matter surfaced last year.
Presenting himself before a five-member larger bench of the apex court, FBR Chairman Muhammad Irshad told the court that notices were issued to 343 individuals following the Panama Papers leaks.
"The owners of 39 companies are not Pakistani residents and 59 people denied ownership of offshore companies,"the chairman elaborated.
Irshad told the court that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's sons Hasan and Hussain Nawaz as well as his daughter Maryam had responded to the notices issued to them by the bureau in November 2016.
Elaborating on the responses of the premier's children, the chairman told the court that Maryam had denied having property abroad and being the owner of any off-shore company.
The court asked whether her response mentioned that she was the trustee of four flats located in London's upscale Park Lane neighbourhood. She responded that she did not.
In the previous hearing of the case on Thursday, Advocate Salman Akram Raja, representing Hasan and Hussain Nawaz, told the apex court that the London flats had rested with Maryam for six months ” between February and July 2006.
Raja told the court that a trust deed was executed between Maryam and Hussain in February 2006, following which she acted as a trustee for her brother.
Irshad also told the court that in a response submitted to the FBR, Hussain Nawaz had stated that he had resided in Saudi Arabia since 2000.
Responding to which, Justice Gulzar angrily asked the chairman if he had closed Hussain's file after the premier's son submitted his response.
"What steps did you take after receiving the responses?"Justice Khosa, who presides over the bench, asked the chairman.
The chairman's response invoked the bench's ire when he said the FBR was"verifying all the information provided by the respondents".
"It seems that you may need 30 years to verify those documents,"Justice Gulzar remarked.
"You have wasted a year doing a task that should have taken hours,"Justice Saeed commented.
The lawyer representing the FBR then admitted before the court that no immediate steps were taken. He argued that separate laws and institutions are available for money laundering cases.
"So in other words, what you are saying is that the FBR did not take any steps regarding money laundering,"Justice Gulzar observed.
