The Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) on Tuesday informed a Lahore special court that no money was “directly deposited” into the bank accounts of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and his son Hamza Shehbaz, as the agency cited the examination of records into the Rs16 money laundering case.
The disclosure was made by FIA counsel Farooq Bajwa as the court resumed hearing into acquittal pleas filed by the duo. In the previous hearing (on Saturday), the court had directed the prosecution and defence to furnish arguments.
The FIA had booked PM Shehbaz and his sons, Hamza and Suleman, in November 2020 under sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 34 and 109 of Prevention of Corruption Act and r/w 3/4 of Anti Money Laundering Act. Suleman Shehbaz is absconding in the UK.
The premier and his son have already been granted pre-arrest bail in the case registered against them.
The FIA had booked PM Shehbaz and his sons, Hamza and Suleman, in November 2020 under sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 34 and 109 of Prevention of Corruption Act and r/w 3/4 of Anti Money Laundering Act. Suleman Shehbaz is absconding in the UK.
At the outset of the hearing today, PM’s counsel informed the court that his client could not appear due to official engagements and requested an exemption for a day. Hamza appeared in court.
Proceeding with the hearing, Special Court Judge Ejaz Awan asked about the number of bank accounts owned by the late Malik Maqsood — also known as Maqsood chaprasi, as was popularly branded by the PTI.
Maqsood, who was a central figure in the case, had passed away in the UAE on June 9.
FIA counsel responded that the suspect had eight bank accounts to his name, adding all such details were mentioned in the challan.
“According to the records, no money was either directly deposited or withdrawn from the accounts of the suspects (Shehbaz and Hamza),” he told the court.
Hamza’s lawyer Amjad Pervez interjected that there was also no allegation of kickbacks either.
Pervez rued the fact that bankers were excluded from the investigation by the FIA. He said none of the witnesses had named Hamza or his father during the course of the investigation.
The judge asked what evidence was there to substantiate that the entire money dealing was being done at Hamza’s behest.
“We do not have any such evidence,” the FIA counsel responded.
He, however, added that the account holders had accepted the ownership of their accounts, as Hamza’s counsel maintained that account owners were “clueless” about the depositor.
“The account of late employee Gulzar was also operated by the Ramzan Sugar Mills administration,” the FIA lawyer said.
The judge asked whether he could give the same statement in writing. To this, Bajwa said he was not authorised to submit a written statement.
Hamza’s counsel insisted that the case couldn’t be dragged on longer than a day, saying “it is based on a political narrative”.
After the hearing, the judge asked both parties to wrap up arguments by tomorrow before adjourning the hearing.
