ims to have received custody directly from Grand Father.
Thats the problem, that sharifs claim a lot, but can offer very little to back up those claims, and same is the case in this claim.
It is 54% of HME profits while in order to deceive the nation they put it as over 200 %
Like I said if you are going to nit pick typos which I also said this publications is filled with, you don't have a leg to stand to.
figures for 2010 is supposed to be 2,207,208 but it typed out as " ,207,208" the 2 before the first comma is missing. One can easily remedy that in the next column when SAR is converted to USD 588,589. How can $588,589 be equal to 207,208 Saudi Riyals ? Unless somehow Saudi Riyal was much higher than the US dollar in 2010, which we know it wasn't because the SAR doesn't fluctuate against the dollar since its pegged to it
But if you convert the USD figure to SAR we get the missing 2 before the " ," But I'm sorry this needed some common sense on the readers part to fill in that one missing blank. My expectations were too high that you could figure this simple figure out.
The father was not involved because he was PM of a country and it was required to stay away from personal business.
Like millions other overseas pakistani who send their money to parents. This was also done.
Page 5
"The coaccused Hassan Nawaz Sharif and Hussain Nawaz Sharif has no independent sources of income being dependent and in capacity of benamidars/abettors, ostensibly
hold the assets on behalf of and for the benefit of you accused Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif "
Page 18
"The JIT concluded in the end that sheer quantum of profits (88%) going to accused Mian
Muhammad Nawaz Sharif in actual effect make him the significant beneficial owner of this business, which ostensibly is owned by accused
Hussain Nawaz Sharif, who practically is reduced to his status of his benamidar. "
Page 45
"(xiv). Upon a careful, cumulative and holistic examination of the documents, testimony, evidence on record, it is held that Accused No. 1 from inception had a material and substantial beneficial interest in ASCL and that the absconding co-accused Husain Nawaz Sharif was never the exclusive nor real and beneficial owner thereof The latter essentially being a mere benamidar of his father who was holding his father's share in ASCL but, in reality, for the benefit of
his father who was the true and real beneficial owner thereof. "
Page 50
"(iv) Accordingly, for the purpose of the present analysis with regard to the value of the "assets" of which the Accused No. 1 has been held to be the real and true beneficial owner hereinabove and the co-accused elder son a mere benamidar holding the same for the benefit of his father, it is concluded that the
initial cost of setting up ASCL was in the region of but not less than US $ 6 million in 2001 and the initial cost of setting up of HME in 20052006 was in the region of but not less than US $ 16.827 mi 'on. These figures have not been denied by the Accused No. 1 and the absconding accused, sons of the Accused No. 1, have also not denied or sought any revision or amendment to the abovementioned figures when appearing before the JIT. Is the value of the relevant assets disproportionate to the known sources of income of the Accused No. 1 and whether the accused can reasonably account for these?
35. The next required step in the analysis of commission of any offense under section 9(a)(v) of the Ordinance is to place the value of ASCL and HME as assessed above(i.e. US $ 6 million and US $ US $ 16.827 million) in juxtaposition with the known sources of income of the Accused No. 1 so as to determine whether the former is disproportionate to the latter. This is undertaken and discussed below. (i) It is in the evidence as per Exhibits PW-1/6 to PW-1/16 that
during the period 2000-2001 (at or around the time of settingup of ASCL) the combined net worth of the Accused No. 1, Accused No. 2 and Accused No. 3 was Rs. 50.94 million plus US $ 64,984 and that the net worth of the Accused No. 1 alone at that time was Rs. 12,767,662. The combined net worth of the Accused No. 1, Accused No. 2 and Accused No. 3 in US $ equates to US $ 860,921.50 (using the exchange rate of 1 US $ =Rs. 64). The foregoing is bome out by the tax return of Accused No. 1 to No. 3 for the relevant period which have been duly exhibited. In response to question number 9 of his statement under section 342 Cr.PC, the Accused No. 1 has, inter alia, stated that "however, in my tax records, I have not withheld any of my assets, whether foreign or local". According to the income, wealth tax and wealth statement of the Accused No. 1 as per Exhibits PW-1/6 to PW-1/16, there is no substantial or dramatic increase in the wealth of the Accused No. 1 between subsequent to 2001 and neither ASCL nor HME nor any beneficial interest or share- therein is declared or disclosed by the Accused No. I in his returns filed with the Federal hoard of Revenue.
In other words, the known and declared wealth of the Accused No. 1 even after 2001 does not increase so much as to explain and reasonably justify the funding of HME from his declared wealth. "
Once again so much for kamou puttars sending their ghareeb abba g money for ghar ka kharcha.
Like I said you need to stop seeing only what you want to see. The verdict is a 131 page corruption ka pulanda of Nawaz, babloo and dabloo sharif and YET all you see is kamou puttars sending ghar ka kharcha to ghareeb abba g from their mehnat ki kamai :rolleyes:
