LAHORE: Showing concern over the continuous exchange of gifts within the Sharifs, Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) leader Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan on Monday called for scrutinising the bank accounts of all members of the Sharif family in order to trace out the money trail.
Unless their bank accounts are inspected, it would be next to impossible to trace out the money trail, he said while talking to the media outside the Lahore High Court. “The Supreme Court has shown too much leniency to Nawaz Sharif in the past [in the Panamagate case]. Now we expect it to give a just decision. Gifts valuing Rs 500 million are being given by the father to his children and the children to their father. Anyone can obtain a letter from any Arab by giving him Rs 100 million. This way all the black money will be whitened.”
The PPP leader also criticised the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) and the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) for accepting “businesses having no evidence in terms of banking transactions” as legitimate.
He termed the Qatari prince’s letter an “admission of money laundering”. “This [practice] can facilitate every businessman. Anyone can obtain a letter from any Arabic and give him Rs 100 million [in return],” he said, adding that such a letter could not justify the income of a person. “Money trail will come out of bank accounts, not Qatari letters.”
He said now the burden proof lied on the Sharif family, and “they have to prove that these flats were acquired through fair means”. “Fair means are those which can be proved through banking transaction. If the SC accepts cash transaction then the entire system of the FBR (Federal Board of Revenue) will be annihilated.”
Aitzaz said that he had gifted Rs 3 million to his son last year, and he did so through a bank because the income tax officer said that if he would give cash to his son then the income tax department would not accept it as a gift, and would accept it as income. “Tax will be levied on it,” the PPP leader quoted the tax officer as telling him.
He stated that the matter was in court and the court would decide about it, but “we will raise this matter in parliament at every cost”.
