The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Monday granted post-arrest bail to Maryam Nawaz in Chaudhry Sugar Mills (CSM) case and directed her to surrender passport as prosecution expressed fear of her escape from the country.
A two-judge bench comprising Justice Ali Baqar Najafi and Justice Sardar Ahmad Naeem had reserved its verdict last week.
The bench allowed the petition against furnishing bonds of Rs 10 million with two sureties each in the like amount and also ordered her to deposit amount of Rs 70 million with the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this court to establish her bonafide besides submitting her passport(s) with him.
Justice Najafi read operative paragraphs of the verdict in open court and declared the charges of the prosecution "a case of further inquiry".
The bench held that the implication of section 3 of AMLA 2010 required some nexus with crime proceeds, therefore, a further investigation will be required to attract the ingredients of this section in the instant case.
It said the question of making layers and becoming beneficial also required further probe since it was not the prosecution's case that investments in the real estate in UAE was out of some crime proceeds in the form of ill-gotten money.
The bench also rejected arguments of the petitioner with respect to double jeopardy ruling that the impugned inquiry into the CSM never remained a subject matter in the Panama Papers case.
Deciding a charge of abetment, aiding and conniving on the petitioner in acquiring assets allegedly beyond means, the bench observed that the analysis of Suspicious Transaction Report (STR), which led to the impugned inquiry, reflected transfer of money from the account of former prime minister to the CSM but the name of the petitioner Maryam Nawaz did not figure out anywhere.
These two important foundations do not prima-facie expose the name of petitioner directly to suggest that she actively participated, connived, abetted or aided to acquire assets disproportionate to the known sources of income since no connection of the petitioner was established with said foreign nationals in order to persuade them to invest in M/S CSML to attract the provisions of NAO, 1999 & AMLA 2010.
Regarding huge amount transferred by UAE nationals as consideration for shares in the CSM, the bench observed that the absence of a direct mention of petitioner in report did not suggest that she actively participated, connived, abetted or aided to acquire assets beyond known sources of income.
No connection of the petitioner was established with the said foreign nationals in order to persuade them to invest in the mills to attract the provisions of National Accountability Ordinance 1999 & Anti-Money Laundering Act 2010, it added.
The bench dismissed an argument of the petitioner that she was minor at the time of incorporation of the CSML in 1981. It said the allegations against her pertained to year 2008 and onward when she was not only major but also shareholder with increased shareholding.
As far as the ownership of shares of UAE national Nasser Abdullah Hussain Lootah was concerned, the bench observed, the official record of the Security & Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) did not show that he was not the shareholder.
It noted that Lootah admitted before the NAB that he sent the money out of investment made by the petitioner's family in real estate on their instructions back to them though he did not own any share in M/S CSML.
The bench observed, "In our considered view, the petitioner has prima facie shown her money trail linked to the said foreigners, leaving the prosecution to further probe into the matter of the allegation against the petitioner".
The bench held that the trial court could decide the fate of a statement of Lootah recorded before a magistrate without permitting the right to cross-examine.
The bench furthermore, observed, the amount of US$ 4.885 million sent to co-suspect Yousaf Abbas by Mr Lootah as a profit/investment from real estate made by the family of the petitioner would shift the onus back to the prosecution to prove it as a dubious transaction.
The bench noted that statements of three other UAE nationals had not so far been recorded by the prosecution, who were also mentioned as shareholder of the CSM, calling for further probe into the guilt of the petitioner.
The bench further observed, "In the present case, it has not come on record that the petitioner had in any manner aided, abetted to persuade the foreign nationals to send their money into M/s CSML account".
The bench further observed "It is also not the prosecution case that said money coming from UAE was black money having origin from some crime proceeds of internationally recognized crimes like terrorism, etc.".
The bench also held that attracting foreign investment had always been a perennial demand of every government and all governments would dream of it but great hurdles were always faced by them to make it a reality.
With respect to a transaction of Rs 70 million made in the petitioner's account, the bench ruled since prima-facie the source of money was shown in the official record of mills with reference to foreign investment therefore the withdrawal of amount, as alleged by the NAB, could not be termed as illegal gotten money or an asset beyond known source of income.
The bench also rejected an argument of the prosecution against the jurisdiction of the court to hear the bail petition under its constitutional jurisdiction of Article 199.
The bench held, "It is true that corruption and corrupt practices are rampant in our society, therefore, needed to be curbed with iron hands but at the same time, this court cannot keep its eyes off the legal proposition that bail cannot be withheld as a punishment since this court would otherwise transgress into the power of the trial court to return its finding upon guilt on the basis of evidence,".
Ends/ November 04, 2019
Comments
Comments are closed.