—, 16. 17. 2s SL Tih Sugar Mills Limited Hamza Spinning Mills Limited 1994-2001 1990, 1993-1994 Tttefaq Textile Mills Limited Detailed financial analysis of these companies from the record made available to the JIT is at Annex II:- a, The —_ companies, shareholders/directors/beneficial owners are pt ted in 1980s and 1990s when respondent Sherein respondents were acting, 8S rimarily family owned businesses. ‘These companies were mainly incorporat number 1 was holding public office. b. The respondents being shareholders injected nominal capital as seed mor companies were mainly entrusted with borrowed funds from bank/financial porated special purpose mney and these c institutions! foreign financial institutions or foreign incor vehicles. c. The companies also borrowed funds at ince other facilities. Foreign eurency funds were generated to install plants and ing forward, majority of the companies were either non- iption stages and rolled over funds with machinery. However, goi operational or were not functioning at the maximum capacity and were in loss ve equity. Such companies included Mohammad Buksh Textile ile Mills __ having negati Mills Limited, Hudaibya Paper Mills Lin Limited, Hamza Board Mills Limited, Mehran Ramzan Text Private Limited. .o weak performance and in absence to accumulated or operational profits, 4 Duet ainly loss divide ‘making units and almost last twenty year no significant turnaround was obsé CONCLUSIONS detailed analysis, significant gap / disparity amongst the known sme and the wealth accumulated by the Respondent No. 1, 6, financial structure and health of companies in Pakistan rads were not declared except in few years. These companies are m: served. ‘As per the afore-stated and declared sources of incor 7 and 8 have been observed. The20. 21, 252 having linkage to the Respondents also do not substantiate the wealth of the Respondents. There exists a significant disparity between the wealth declared by the Respondents and the means though which the Respondents had generated income from known/declared sources. in shape of loans and gifts from United Kingdom Moreover, irregular movement of huge amounts Kingdom of Saudi Arabia based company (Hill Metals Establishment), based Companies (Flagship Investments Limited and others) and United Arab Emirates based Company (Capital FZE) to Respondent No. 1, Respondent No. 7 and Pakistan based companies of Respondent No. 1 and family have been highlighted. The role of off-shore companies is critically important as several off-shore companies (Nescoll Limited, Nielsen Enterprises Limited, Alanna Services Limited, Lamkin S.A., Coomber Group Inc., Hiltem International Limited) have been identified to be linked with their businesses in UK while conducting this investigation. These companies were mainly used for inflow of funds into UK based companies; which not only acquired expensive properties in UK from such funds but also revolve these funds amongst their companies of UK, KSA, UAE and Pakistan. In addition to the companies, Respondent No. 1 and 7 have been found to be recipients of these funds movement into Pakistan as gifts/loans whose purpose/reason have not justified by them before the JIT. Needless to say, these UK-companies were loss-making entities with heavily engaged in revolving of funds vis-a-vis" creating a smoke screen that the expensive properties of UK were due to the business operations of these UK companies. The JIT is compelled to refer to: Section 9(a)(v) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999: “4 holder of a public office, or any other person, is said to commit or to have committed the offence of corruption and corrupt practices:-253 v ee cn eee dependents or benamidars owns, possesses, or has ‘a ee a Mm any assets oe holds irrevocable power of ae ty, -atel 'ssets OF pecuniary resources disproportionate to his income, which he cannot reasonably account for or maintaii “ainfains a standard of ASSETS beyond that which is commensurate With his sources of income --. Section 14(c) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999: “In any trial of an offence punishable under clause (v) of sub-section (a) of Section 9 of this Ordinance, the fact that the accused person or any other person on his behalf, is in possession for which the accused person cannot satisfactorily account, of assets or pecuniary resources disproportionate to his known sources of income, or that such person has, at or about the time of the commission of the offence with which he is charged, obtained an accretion to his pecuniary resources or property for which he cannot satisfactorily account, the Court shall presume, unless the contrary is proved, that the accused person is guilty of the offence of corruption and corrupt practices and his conviction therefor shall not be invalid by reason only that it is based solely on such presumption.” y. "The Qanun-¢-Shahadat Order, 1984-and the following provisions are also relevant: Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984: “122. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge. When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person the burden of proving that fact is upon him. _ Article 117 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984: “117. Burden of proof. (1) Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.