PHOTO: FILE
Tareen had been disqualified by the top court in its December 15, 2017 verdict under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution over concealment of assets.
A three-judge bench of the court, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Mian Saqib Nisar and comprising Justice Umar Ata Bandial and Justice Faisal Arab, will take up the review petition. Sikandar Bashir Mohmand will appear on behalf of Tareen.
The same bench will also hear PML-N leader Hanif Abbasi’s review petition against the SC verdict which declared Prime Minister Imran Khan ‘Sadiq and Ameen’. Akram Sheikh will represent Abbasi before the court.
Tareen, Zubair hit MQM with charm offensive
On December 15, 2017, the same bench had declared that Sunny View Limited (SVL), an offshore company, was established by Tareen which had a legal title of the property measuring 12 acres known as ‘Hyde House’ but the actual, true, real and beneficial owner of the said property was Tareen.
While filing a review petition against his disqualification, Tareen submitted a four-page affidavit wherein he explained that he was not the beneficial owner of the UK property and there was no dishonesty on his side.
“As the trust was funded through remittances from Pakistan using official banking channels and was, therefore, in full knowledge of the State Bank of Pakistan, I say the question of concealment does not arise,” says the affidavit.
In the affidavit, Tareen states that it was his intention to remit the funds in compliance with the applicable laws and regulations and to make all necessary disclosures.
“Since the remitted funds are from concealment thereof, I say that in any event, there cannot be any concealment of tax paid funds remitted through official banking channels with the approval and knowledge of the State Bank of Pakistan and Federal Board of Revenue (FBR),” the affidavit says.
“In my personal, financial and fiscal affairs I have endeavoured to adhere to the highest standards of compliance. I seek and act upon professional advice from competent practitioners who are considered leaders in their area of practice,” it adds.
It is further submitted that Tareen has established the ‘trust’, its funding and remittance on the basis of professional advice, which he still believes is correct and true. Value of the funds settled into the trust has been consistently and fully disclosed since 2011 in the wealth statement of his children, who are the ultimate beneficiaries.
“I have four children (three daughters and a son) all of whom are married and independent. The inclusion of myself and my spouse as discretionary lifetime beneficiaries in the settlement was a proactive measure only so as to preclude my children at least during the lifetime of the parents from liquidating the trust and distributing and spending the proceeds, which I was advised could potentially be achieved if all discretionary beneficiaries unanimously demanded that of the trustees,” Tareen states in his affidavit.
He further states that he never wished, intended or planned for the dwelling held under the trust to be transferred to himself or his spouse during his lifetime.
Twitterati can't get enough of Jahangir Tareen 'chasing independent candidates'
“Since the English and Jersey law relating to the governing discretionary trust is an intricate and esoteric subject, my understanding was based on professional advice and my reading of settlement as a lay person, even not accepted by the Supreme Court would not and do not warrant a declaration of dishonesty on my part as the trust arrangement is legitimate and lawfully recognised and valid structure and there was never any intent to mislead or conceal the trust from the court, my former constituents or from any revenue authorities or regulators and nor is there any evidence to the contrary to the record,” he states.
Tareen has also submitted some documents for the first time regarding the trust to establish that he is not the beneficial owner of the property.
COMMENTS (1)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ