The accountability court in Islamabad on Wednesday postponed the indictment of former president Asif Ali Zardari and his sister, Faryal Talpur, in the mega money laundering and Park Lane Residency reference because of incomplete attendance.
Zardari and Talpur did not appear in the court again and sought exemption from attendance. However, during the proceedings National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Prosecutor Sardar Muzaffar Abbasi completed arguments on Zardari’s plea for acquittal.
Accountability judge Muhammad Azam Khan heard the case, which pertained to charges of corruption through fake bank accounts and embezzlement in the Park Lane (Pvt) Limited and Parthenon (Pvt) Limited, incurring a loss of billions of rupees to the national exchequer.
During the hearing, Abbasi, while initiating arguments, told the court that it was not a case of wilful default in any way, adding however, that in this case, fake bank accounts were created systematically for the transfer of money.
Abbasi told the court that money was transferred from the accounts of Park Lane to the accounts of ice candy venders and cart pushers. However, defence lawyer Farooq H Naek objected, saying that the prosecutor was repeating the same thing over and over again.
Abbasi said that Parthenon was formed on September 3, 2009 but the loan proposal was prepared even before its creation. On August 31, 2009 there was a meeting with Arif Habib Bank regarding the loan for the company, which had not been formed then, he added
Presenting copies of pay orders, he stated that Rs200 million was transferred to a rikshaw driver from a company called Dream Trading. Similarly, he headed, another Rs200 million went to a Faluda vender from the Ocean Enterprises.
The money was borrowed from a government bank and placed in the accounts of the rickshaw driver and the Faluda vender. Both of them had appeared before the Supreme Court, the NAB prosecutor told the court. “This is how a white-collar crime is committed,” he said.
The court inquired whether the persons, who withdrew the cash could be identified. The investigating officer informed the court that the money was not withdrawn but transferred from one fake account to another. He added the money was transferred from Park Lane’s account.
Abbasi said that the sponsors and owners of the Park Lane and the Parthenon knew the top management of Arif Habib Bank. He added that the bank had warned company president Hussain Lawai, not to extend the loan but Lawai gave it any because there was a planning “to get the loan and default”.
Quoting from the statement of a former president of the National Bank of Pakistan (NBP), Abbasi said that Khawaja Anwar Majeed had invited him to Asif Zardari’s dinner, where the former president had told him that Majeed was very close to him [Zardari].
He said that the former NBP president Syed Ali Raza was first made an accused in the case but he was later pardoned, adding that Syed Qamar Hussain was the chief operating officer (COO). Both of them had become approvers in the case.
Abbasi said that under Zardari’s pressure, the loan amounts which went into fake accounts continued to be released. He added that all the officers of the National Bank Credit Committee were also among the witnesses against Zardari.
Abbasi said that 61 witnesses had recorded statements under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which were available with NAB. He added that the officials of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) would also testify.
Nine officers of the NAB Rawalpindi, who collected the evidence were also included in the list of witnesses. Muhammad Ali Abro of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), who initially investigated the fake accounts, would also be a witness.
“All witnesses will also be produced in the court after the indictment, the prosecutor told the court, adding that it was not a matter of normal transaction, “we have already said that Parthenon is a dummy company used to obtain loans,” he added.
Abbasi said that Zardari’s plea for quashing the reference and challenging the court’s jurisdiction was baseless and requested the court to dismiss his petitions. The judge sought rebuttal of the prosecutor’s arguments from Naik and adjourned the hearing till August 7.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ