Sunday , March 24 2019
Breaking News
Home / Business / SC orders NAB to wrap up investigations into fake accounts case in 2 months
SC orders NAB to wrap up investigations into fake accounts case in 2 months

SC orders NAB to wrap up investigations into fake accounts case in 2 months

 

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court while hearing the fake accounts case on Monday ordered that the names of PPP Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari and Sindh Chief Minister Murad Shah be removed from both the exit control list and the joint investigation team’s report on a probe into the case.

The court also ordered that the case be forwarded to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), and directed the anti-corruption watchdog to wrap up its investigation within two months.

The top court was hearing a suo motu case regarding a delay into a 2015 Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) probe into money laundering of billions of rupees via fake bank accounts. Both Bilawal and Shah were named in the report submitted to the top court last month by the JIT which was tasked to probe the case.

Several bigwigs, including former president Asif Zardari, his sister Faryal Talpur, former president of Summit Bank Hussain Lawai and Omni Group’s Anwar Majeed, were all nominated in the case. Property tycoon Malik Riaz, his son-in-law Zain have also been included in the probe.

Chief Justice of Pakistan Mian Saqib Nisar today grilled the state prosecutor over why the government had decided to place Bilawal on the no-fly list after the JIT recommended the placement of 172 people named in its report on the ECL.

“The JIT will have to clarify one thing: Why did it involve Bilawal in this matter?” Justice Nisar asked. “What did Bilawal do?”

The chief justice wondered if the PPP chairman’s name had been included upon “someone’s directives”.

He asked state prosecutor Faisal Siddiqui if the reason behind Bilawal’s inclusion in the investigation was to “defame someone”. He also expressed annoyance at the placement of the Sindh chief minister’s name on the ECL.

Subsequently, the court ordered the removal of Bilawal and Shah’s names from the ECL and JIT report, and sent the case to NAB, directing it to conclude its investigation within two months.

The top judge also ordered to exclude the names of Farooq H Naek and Asim Mansoor, the attorney general’s brother, from the ECL.

In his remarks, the chief justice said “angels didn’t open the accounts” someone has to be held responsible for opening the fake accounts, therefore, the issue was being sent to NAB.

A nexus of politicians and private property tycoon has been uncovered in the fake accounts case, Justice Nisar said. He vowed to bring the case to its logical conclusion.

The JIT report had earlier said that a close nexus had been found between a troika of Zardari Group, Omni Group and Bahria Town.

The chief justice today observed that the fake accounts appeared to be connected to politicians, Bahria Town and Omni Group. He said the court had yet to see whether Omni Group had ties to politicians named in the JIT report, and if both were linked to Bahria Town as well.

Omni Group lawyer Munir Bhatti denied the existence of a nexus between the three different companies.

He urged the bench to “allow him to show [the court] the real picture” and told the bench that Omni Group had bought the sugar mills in accordance with the law.

“But the mills were not available for free, were they?” the chief justice asked. “The money came through the fake accounts.”

Bhatti said that his client had not done anything illegal by buying sugar mills on subsidies and added that the figures mentioned in the JIT report were not a single record.

“Do you know anything about layering, Mr Bhatti?” Justice Ijazul Ahsan, who is part of the bench hearing the case, asked the lawyer. Bhatti responded in the negative.

“Then why are you presenting arguments?” Justice Ahsan asked.

The chief justice said that the findings of the JIT report cannot be dismissed and the court has to examine the replies from the respondents. Bahria Town, Zain Malik, Zardari, Talpur, Anwar and Abdul Ghani Majeed, and the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan have all submitted their responses to the court.

Meanwhile, Anwar Majeed’s lawyer Shahid Hamid, who had also appeared before court today, said that instead of verifying the JIT report itself, the apex court should let the FIA determine its authenticity, since the latter had initially taken up the case. He urged the court to allow the companies, that are owned by the Omni Group but are not named in the JIT report, to continue functioning.

SECP explains ‘important facts’ in response to JIT report

The SECP, in its response, also said that the JIT had not approached it for comment or given it an opportunity to “explain the correct legal position” on the matter of acquisition of shares of Arif Habib Bank and Atlas Bank by Suroor Investment Ltd.

“Therefore, it is of utmost importance to bring on the record the true legal position and important facts for assistance of this honourable court while considering the report of the JIT to the extent of the purported role of SECP in the scheme of arrangement of three banking companies,” it added. The SECP informed the court of how the merger and acquisition took place, and all the laws and rules under which it took place.

It said it had followed up on the matter with all three banks involved in the M&A process for almost a year and a half, it said, adding that the proceedings under the Takeover Ordinance were only dropped after receipt of letters from the State Bank of Pakistan through which it was conclusively established that the transaction is a part of rehabilitation/scheme of arrangement for revival of sick banks, which will ultimately stand merged through an order of the SBP.

“Consquently, SBP approved the merger of the banks through which shareholders of Atlas Bank, My Bank and Arif Habib Bank were given shares of Summit Bank as per the swap ratio determined and approved by SBP.”

It asked that the JIT’s observations “be reconsidered and removed, being factually incorrect and legally misconceived”.