Panama Papers case#JIT report and recommendations

On April 3, 2016, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) made 11.5 million secret documents, later known as the Panama Papers, available to the public.{{cite news |title=News Group Claims Huge Trove of Data on Offshore Accounts |url=https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/04/03/world/europe/ap-panama-papers.html |newspaper=The New York Times |agency=Associated Press |date=3 April 2016 |access-date=4 April 2016 |first1=Natalya |last1=Vasilyeva |first2=Mae |last2=Anderson}} The documents, sourced from Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca, among other revelations about other public figures in many other countries, included details of eight offshore companies with links to the family of Nawaz Sharif, the then-incumbent prime minister of Pakistan, and his brother Shehbaz Sharif, the incumbent Chief Minister of Punjab.{{cite web|last1=Cheema|first1=Umer|title=House of Sharifs Named In Panama Papers|url=http://cirp.pk/index.php/2016/04/05/house-of-sharifs-named-in-panama-papers/|website=Centre for Investigative Reporting in Pakistan|publisher=CIRP|access-date=11 April 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170429100453/http://cirp.pk/index.php/2016/04/05/house-of-sharifs-named-in-panama-papers/|archive-date=29 April 2017|url-status=dead}}

According to the ICIJ, Sharif's children Maryam Nawaz, Hassan Nawaz and Hussain Nawaz "were owners or had the right to authorise transactions for several companies".{{cite web |publisher=The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists |title=Giant leak of offshore financial records exposes global array of crime and corruption |url=https://www.occrp.org/en/panamapapers/overview/intro/ |website=OCCRP |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160404075638/https://www.occrp.org/en/panamapapers/overview/intro/ |archive-date=4 April 2016 |url-status=live |date=3 April 2016}} Mossack Fonseca records tied the children to four offshore companies, Nescoll Limited, Nielson Holdings Limited, Coomber Group Inc., and Hangon Property Holdings Limited.{{cite news |url=http://cirp.pk/index.php/2016/04/04/the-panama-papers-pages-from-pakistan/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160406024911/http://cirp.pk/index.php/2016/04/04/the-panama-papers-pages-from-pakistan/ |url-status=dead |archive-date=6 April 2016 |title=The Panama Papers: Pages from Pakistan |date=4 April 2016 |work=Center for Investigative Reporting in Pakistan (CIRP) |access-date=5 April 2016}}

The companies acquired luxury real estate in London from 2006 to 2007. The real estate was collateral for loans of up to $13.8 million, according to the leaked Panama Papers.{{cite news |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/pakistan-prime-minister-upgrades-probe-into-panama-papers-affair-1461344499 |title=Pakistan Prime Minister Upgrades Probe Into Panama Papers Affair: Premier calls for a commission of inquiry made up of sitting judges, instead of retired |author=Saeed Shah |date=22 April 2016 |access-date=22 April 2016 |publisher=Wall Street Journal}}

File:Nawaz Sharif January 2015.jpg

Facing growing criticism, Sharif announced the formation of a judicial commission under a retired judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, in a nationwide address on April 5, 2016. However, former justices Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, Nasir-ul-Mulk, Amir-ul-Mulk Mengal, Sahir Ali, and Tanvir Ahmad Khan all refused to participate and no commission was formed.{{cite news|last1=Staff Report|title=Five ex-SC judges refused to lead Panama leaks inquiry: Nisar|url=https://www.dawn.com/news/1251858/five-ex-sc-judges-refused-to-lead-panama-leaks-inquiry-nisar|access-date=11 April 2017|work=Dawn|publisher=Dawn Group|date=13 April 2016}} The federal government remained committed to forming a commission, negotiating its terms of reference with opposition parties Pakistan People's Party and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf. In a second address on 22 April 2016, Sharif announced he would resign if proven guilty.{{cite news|last1=Haider|first1=Mateen|title=I will resign if proven guilty, vows PM|url=https://www.dawn.com/news/1253723|access-date=11 April 2017|work=Dawn|publisher=Dawn Group|date=22 April 2016}} The latter effort failed when Chief Justice of Pakistan Anwar Zaheer Jamali, cited broad, open-ended terms of reference and the limited scope of the law in this area, and declined to form "a toothless commission, which will serve no useful purpose."{{cite web|last1=Khan|first1=Raza|title=CJP refuses to form "toothless" commission|url=https://www.dawn.com/news/1258127|website=Dawn| date=13 May 2016 |publisher=Dawn Group|access-date=11 April 2017}}

In a televised address to the National Assembly of Pakistan on May 16, 2016, Sharif suggested forming a joint committee to draft the terms of reference for establishing a judicial commission. He said he was not afraid of accountability, while criticizing opposition figures: "Today, people living in bungalows and commuting in helicopters are accusing me of misconduct. Can they explain before the nation as to how they earned all this money and how much tax they paid?"{{cite web|last1=Report|title=Nawaz suggests forming joint committee to probe Panama leaks|url=https://www.dawn.com/news/1258710|website=Dawn| date=16 May 2016 |publisher=Dawn Group|access-date=11 April 2017}} In his speech, Sharif said he would clear the air about the London flats, but did not return to the subject. He reiterated that the flats had been purchased with money earned from the sale of Jeddah Steel Mills, which had belonged to his father. Later, Sharif omitted any reference to his family's business connections with the Qatari royal family during his 16 May speech, inviting allegations of contradictory statements.{{cite web|url=http://dunyanews.tv/en/Pakistan/363323-Panama-Papers-case-PM-gave-contradictory-statemen |title=Panama Papers case: PM gave contradictory statements, says SC |website=Dunyanews.tv |date=30 November 2016 |access-date=24 January 2017}}

Following Sharif's speech, PTI chairman Imran Khan filed a petition through counsel Naeem Bokhari with the Supreme Court of Pakistan on 29 August 2016, seeking Sharif's disqualification as prime minister and as a member of the National Assembly of Pakistan. Other political leaders including Sheikh Rashid Ahmed of Awami Muslim League, and Siraj-ul-Haq of Jamat-e-Islami, also expressed support for the petition. It targeted Sharif's children, his son-in-law Muhammad Safdar, and his brother-in-law and the incumbent finance minister Ishaq Dar as well. PTI workers staged a sit-in outside Sharif's private residence at Raiwind near Lahore on 30 September 2016. Khan subsequently called on supporters to "lock-down" Islamabad until Nawaz Sharif "resigned or presented himself for accountability".{{cite news|last1=Ghumman|first1=Khawar|title=Imran plans siege of Islamabad on Oct 30|url=https://www.dawn.com/news/1288516|access-date=11 April 2017|work=Dawn|publisher=Dawn Group|date=7 October 2016}}

The court's initial five-member bench for hearing the case was headed by Chief Justice Jamali and comprised Justices Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Amir Hani Muslim, Sh. Azmat Saeed, and Ijaz-ul-Ahsan. The hearings began 1 November 2016. PTI leader Imran Khan was represented by Bokhari and Hamid Khan. Legal counsel for Sharif and his children were senior lawyers Salman Aslam Butt and Akram Sheikh. The court also accepted additional petitions filed by other opposition figures, including Jamaat-e-Islami leader Siraj-ul-Haq and Sheikh Rashid Ahmad. In their reply, Sharif lawyers Butt and Shoaib Rashid informed the bench that though they owned properties abroad, Hassan and Hussain Nawaz had been running a business lawfully for decades, that Maryam Nawaz was not dependent on her father, nor was she the beneficial owner of the cited offshore companies, Nielsen and Nescoll, but a trustee.{{cite news|last1=Malik|first1=Hasnaat|title=Panamagate hearing: For SC, Sharif family's inquiry is a priority|url=https://tribune.com.pk/story/1223821/panamagate-hearing-sc-sharif-familys-inquiry-priority/|access-date=11 April 2017|work=The Express Tribune|publisher=Express|date=8 November 2016}} Justice Khosa required counsel to satisfy the bench that the money had been lawfully earned and transferred. The court also questioned the quality of PTI's evidence, with Justice Saeed remarking that newspaper clippings were only good for "selling pakoras" the day after publication.{{cite news|last1=Iqbal|first1=Nasir|title=SC questions quality of PTI's evidence|url=https://www.dawn.com/news/1296665|access-date=11 April 2017|work=Dawn|agency=Dawn Group|date=16 November 2016}}

File:Hamad Bin Jassim.png (pictured) "completely changed the public stand of the Prime Minister".]]

On 14 November 2016, Sharif lawyer Sheikh dramatically produced a letter written by Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, the Prime Minister of Qatar from 2007 to 2013. The letter, marked private and confidential, read:

[My father Jassim] had longstanding business relations with (Sharif's father) Mian Mohammad Sharif which were coordinated through my eldest brother... Mian Sharif expressed his desire to invest a certain amount of money in the real estate business of Al Thani family in Qatar. I understood at that time, that an aggregate sum of around Dirhams 12 million was contributed by Mian Sharif, originating from the sale of business in Dubai (for four flats: 16, 16A, 17 and 17A Avenfield House, Park Lane, London, registered under the ownership of two offshore companies, while their bearer share certificates were kept in Qatar). These were purchased from the proceeds of the real estate business... I can recall that during his lifetime, Mian Sharif wished that the beneficiary of his investment and returns in the real estate business [should be] his grandson Hussain Nawaz Sharif.{{cite web|last1=Iqbal|first1=Nasir|title=Qatari letter changes PM's stance on London properties: SC|url=https://www.dawn.com/news/1296666|website=dawn.com| date=16 November 2016 |publisher=Dawn Group|access-date=11 April 2017}}

Justice Khosa observed that the document had "completely changed the public stand of the Prime Minister." When asked why Sharif had not mentioned the Qatari letter in his 16 May speech, Butt replied, 'Those were not legal testimonials, rather mere political statements."{{cite web|last1=Ali|first1=Sulman|title=Panamagate case: PM's speeches were 'political statements': SC told|url=http://channel24.pk/highlights/2016/12/07/panamagate-case-pms-speeches-political-statements-sc-told/|website=Samaa TV|publisher=Samaa|access-date=11 April 2017}} Expressing inability to furnish a "40-year-old" money trail, Butt explained that business families at the time conducted transactions over parchis, slips of paper.{{cite web|last1=Malik|first1=Hasnaat|title=Sharif family dissatisfied with PM's counsel in Panamagate|url=https://tribune.com.pk/story/1271334/sharif-family-dissatisfied-pms-counsel-panamagate/|website=The Express Tribune|date=21 December 2016 |publisher=Express|access-date=11 April 2017}} A second letter written by Al Thani was produced on 26 January 2017, clarifying that the "investment was made by way of provision of cash which was common practice in the Gulf region at the time of the investment. It was also, given the longstanding relationship between my father and Mr. Sharif, a customary way for them to do business between themselves."{{cite news|last1=Bhatti|first1=Haseeb|title=Panamagate hearing: second letter from Qatari royal 'clarifies' Sharif investment in Gulf Steel Mills|url=https://www.dawn.com/news/1310842|access-date=11 April 2017|work=Dawn|publisher=Dawn Group|date=26 January 2017}}

Following the superannuation and retirement of Chief Justice Jamali in December, a new bench headed by Justice Khosa was formed to hear the case afresh. The bench retained justices Sh. Azmat Saeed and Ijaz-ul-Ahsan, and included justices Ejaz Afzal Khan and Gulzar Ahmed. The Sharif family also reshuffled its legal team: Butt and Sheikh were replaced with Makhdoom Ali Khan, Shahid Hamid, and Salman Akram Raja. The move came following widespread criticism over the team's handling of the case, and the Qatari letter's introduction.{{cite web|last1=Sikander|first1=Sardar|title=Lawyer's move raises eyebrows in PML-N camp|url=https://tribune.com.pk/story/1232862/lawyers-move-raises-eyebrows-pml-n-camp/|website=The Express Tribune|date=15 November 2016 |publisher=Express|access-date=11 April 2017}} On the petitioners' side, lead counsel Hamid Khan too recused himself from arguing the case, claiming, "I can contest a case in the court, but am unable to indulge in a media war" after media reports surfaced that the party was unsatisfied with his performance.{{cite news|last1=Web Desk|title=Panamagate : Hamid Khan excuses himself from representing PTI|url=https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/165870-Panamagate-Hamid-Khan-excuses-himself-from-representing-PTI|access-date=11 April 2017|work=The News|publisher=Jang Group|date=18 November 2016}} Fresh hearings resumed on 4 January 2017 with the reconstituted bench, new defence counsel, and a truncated petitioner's side.{{cite news|title=Supreme Court to hear Panama Leaks case on daily basis|url=https://www.geo.tv/latest/126038-Supreme-Court-to-resume-Panama-Leaks-case-hearing-today|access-date=28 July 2017|work=www.geo.tv}}

The PTI's case was relitigated entirely by Bokhari, alongside Maleeka Bokhari and Akbar Hussain. Bokhari referred to interviews with different members of the Sharif family, highlighting that each gave differing versions of the ownership structure of the London properties.{{cite web|last1=Cheema|first1=Hasham|title=How Pakistan's Panama Paper's probe unfolded|url=https://www.dawn.com/news/1316531|website=dawn.com|publisher=Dawn Group|access-date=11 April 2017}} He argued that the Sharif family had failed to present any record regarding banking transactions, or refer to trust deeds or the Qatari connection earlier.{{cite web|last1=Sindhu|first1=Haider Ali|title=Panama pleas: PTI to convince larger bench further as SC adjourns hearing|url=https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/headline/panama-pleas-sc-to-resume-hearing-shortly/|website=Daily Pakistan| date=9 January 2017 |access-date=12 April 2017}} He maintained that Maryam Nawaz had declared her taxable income as zero in tax returns, and remained a dependent on her father. He added that Hussain Nawaz had given Rs. 810 million to his father, without any of it being taxed.{{cite news|title=DailyTimes {{!}} PTI counsel asks for Hussain Nawaz's income source in Panama leak case hearing|url=http://dailytimes.com.pk/pakistan/09-Jan-17/pti-counsel-asks-for-hussain-nawazs-income-source-in-panama-leak-case-hearing|access-date=28 July 2017|work=dailytimes.com.pk|language=en}}

Bokhari also highlighted the National Accountability Bureau's failure to pursue its own reference filed against Hudaibiya Paper Mills in 2000, implicating the Sharif family and Ishaq Dar in money laundering in the late 1990s.{{cite news|last1=Bhatti|first1=Haseeb|title=PTI counsel advised to file reference with NAB to reopen Hudaibiya Paper Mills case|url=https://www.dawn.com/news/1307372|access-date=28 July 2017|work=DAWN.COM|date=9 January 2017|language=en}}

Sharif's lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan, appeared as lead counsel, assisted by Saad Hashmi and Sarmad Hani. Makhdoom quoted the court's own decision on Article 62 (1)F of the Constitution, under which the petitioners sought Sharif's disqualification, as "a nightmare of interpretations and feast of obscurities."{{cite web|last1=Gishkori|first1=Zahid|title=Panama Leaks: PM's counsel impresses judges|url=https://www.geo.tv/latest/127327-Panama-Leaks-PMs-lawyer-impresses-judges|website=Geo|publisher=Jang Group|access-date=12 April 2017}} Makhdoom distinguished the case from that of Yusuf Raza Gilani, who was disqualified as prime minister in 2012 for contempt of court. Dismissing the Gilani precedent, Makhdoom argued, "My Lords you need to look at the background and understand the context of this judgment." Regarding Maryam Nawaz's dependence status, Makdhoom maintained she was listed as the prime minister's dependent on tax forms because there was no other column on the sheet.{{cite news|last1=Bhatti|first1=Haseeb|title='What is the reason for these gifts?': Sharif family money trail under scrutiny in Supreme Court|url=https://www.dawn.com/news/1309216|access-date=12 April 2017|work=Dawn|publisher=Dawn Group|date=18 January 2017}}

To illustrate that it was not difficult to transport 12 million dirhams in cash, Hassan and Hussain Nawaz's counsel Salman Akram Raja placed the novels War and Peace and The Brothers Karamazov on top of each other, demonstrating that the thickness of both books, amounting to over 3,000 pages, would be the same as two million dirhams in cash.{{cite news|last1=Iqbal|first1=Nasir|title=Withholding evidence a big gamble, SC tells Hussain's lawyer|url=https://www.dawn.com/news/1311968|access-date=11 April 2017|work=Dawn|publisher=Dawn Group}}

File:Ishaq Dar 1.jpg's confession "under duress".]]

Throughout the case, the court questioned the non-functioning of state institutions in pursuing the Panama affair. Muhammad Irshad, Chairman of the Federal Board of Revenue informed the court that notices had been issued to 343 individuals following the Panama Papers leaks, and that Hassan, Hussain and Maryam Nawaz had responded to the notices. FBR lawyer Mohammad Waqar Rana said that no immediate steps had been taken in pursuance of the Panama scandal, arguing that separate laws and institutions were available for money laundering cases. "So in other words, what you are saying is that the FBR did not take any steps regarding money laundering?" Justice Gulzar observed. The FBR failed to satisfy the court over actions taken. "Thank you very much for not assisting the court", Justice Khosa admonished the FBR side.{{cite web|last1=Malik|first1=Hasnaat|title=Panamagate case: Top court grills NAB, FBR for not probing Sharif family|url=https://tribune.com.pk/story/1334064/panamagate-case-top-court-grills-nab-fbr-not-probing-sharif-family/|website=The Express Tribune|date=21 February 2017 |publisher=Express|access-date=12 April 2017}}

The NAB (National Accountability Bureau) was represented by Chairman Qamar Zaman Chaudhry and Prosecutor General Waqas Qadeer Dar. During their submissions, the case shifted focus to the Hudaibiya criminal reference filed by NAB earlier. The reference was based on a confession by Ishaq Dar in 2000, admitting to laundering $14.86 million for the Sharif family.{{cite news|last1=Bhatti|first1=Haseeb|title=SC grills FBR chairman over Panamagate|url=https://www.dawn.com/news/1316314|access-date=12 April 2017|work=Dawn|publisher=Dawn Group|date=22 February 2017}} Dar had been placed under house arrest at the time by the military regime of Pervez Musharraf, and maintained the confession had been acquired under duress. The case was quashed by the Lahore High Court in 2014, when Dar was finance minister. "There are reservations regarding NAB's failure to register an appeal", the bench remarked. "When a criminal gets bail in a case of petty theft, NAB registers an appeal. This is a case worth millions and no appeal was registered", Justice Khosa observed. Chaudhry restated his decision not to register an appeal. Justice Saeed warned the NAB team to "be prepared to face serious consequences".{{cite news|last1=Bhatti|first1=Haseeb|title=SC grills FBR chairman over Panamagate|url=https://www.dawn.com/news/1316115|access-date=28 July 2017|work=DAWN.COM|date=21 February 2017|language=en}}

The Attorney-General for Pakistan, Ashtar Ausaf Ali, was put on notice to assist the Court on 22 February 2017. Ausaf, with Asad Rahim Khan, Salaar Khan, and Shahzaib Khan submitted that anyone could file an appeal against the Lahore High Court's decision in the Hudaibiya reference, let alone NAB. Justice Saeed commented that NAB had "died in front of us yesterday".{{cite news|last1=Sindhu|first1=Haider Ali|title=Premier's insurance policy 'NAB' died yesterday, remarks SC as Panama case nears completion|url=https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/headline/agp-to-wind-up-arguments-as-panama-case-nears-completion/|access-date=12 April 2017|work=Daily Pakistan|date=22 February 2017}} Ausaf further submitted that the prime minister did not have immunity in Code of Criminal Procedure cases under the Constitution. Ausaf was warned "not to become a party to the case" but assist the court.{{cite news|last1=Bhatti|first1=Haseeb|title=Frustrated by changing statements, SC tells attorney general to 'stick to one story'|url=https://www.dawn.com/news/1316314|access-date=28 July 2017|work=DAWN.COM|date=22 February 2017|language=en}}

Following Bokhari's rebuttal to the defence case, the petitioners appeared before the bench on 23 February 2017, including Imran Khan, Siraj-ul-Haq, and Sheikh Rashid Ahmad. The Court reserved its judgment on that day.{{cite news|last1=Bhatti|first1=Haseeb|title=Panamagate arguments end, SC reserves judgement|url=https://www.dawn.com/news/1316524|access-date=28 July 2017|work=DAWN.COM|date=23 February 2017|language=en}}

{{quote box

|quote = The secret of a great success for which you are at a loss to account is a crime that has never been found out, because it was properly executed

|source = — The opening statement of the detailed Panama Case verdict; quoting French novelist and playwright, Honoré de Balzac.{{cite web|title=Panama Papers Case Detailed Verdict|url=https://www.scribd.com/document/345738238/Supreme-Court-s-judgement-on-Panama-case#from_embed|website=Scribd|publisher=Supreme Court of Pakistan|access-date=3 June 2017|page=5}}

|align = right

|width = 25em

|border = 1px

|bgcolor = #c6dbf7

|halign = left

}}

Image:Police supreme court Pakistan 2017.jpg

The verdict in the case was announced at 2:00 p.m. PST on 20 April 2017. The Supreme Court in a 3–2 decision ruled that there was insufficient evidence to order Sharif's removal from office, but ordered further investigation into corruption allegations. The court ordered the formation of a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) under a three-member special bench, which was later known as the JIT implementation bench. The two dissenting judges on the bench, Justice Asif Saeed Khosa and Justice Gulzar Ahmed, were of the opinion that Sharif had not been honest to the nation and should be disqualified from office.{{cite web|title=Meet the SC judges behind the Panama Papers ruling|url=https://www.dawn.com/news/1328146|website=Dawn.com| date=20 April 2017 }}

The Panama Case JIT had powers to investigate all respondents and related parties, including the prime minister, and was ordered to complete its investigation within 60 days and present its findings to the Supreme Court every 15 days.{{cite web|last1=Jamal|first1=Sana|title=Nawaz Sharif survives after top court verdict in Panama Papers case|url=http://gulfnews.com/news/asia/pakistan/nawaz-sharif-survives-after-top-court-verdict-in-panama-papers-case-1.2014906|website=Gulf News|date=20 April 2017 }}

The detailed, 540-page verdict in the case was released on April 20, 2017. It was primarily authored by Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan and was noted for its harsh criticism of state investigative institutions, NAB and the FIA, as well as the government for their handling of the Panama Papers leaks.{{cite web|title=SC compares NAB chief to literary character 'who sold his soul to the Devil'|url=https://www.samaa.tv/pakistan/2017/04/sc-compares-nab-chief-to-literary-character-who-sold-his-soul-to-the-devil/|website=Samaa TV}} It chastised the defendants for not being 'completely honest with the court'.{{cite web|last1=Abbasi|first1=Ansar|title=Where the SC's Panama verdict really haunts the Sharifs!|url=https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/202617-Where-the-SCs-Panama-verdict-really-haunts-the-Sharifs|website=The News International}}

Under the ruling of the Supreme Court a three-member special implementation bench supervised the JIT, headed by Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan and including Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed and Justice Ijazul Ahsan. The JIT was formally constituted by the Supreme Court's implementation bench on 6 May 2017. It comprised six members, with the head from FIA:{{cite web|last1=Bhatti|first1=Haseeb|title=Supreme Court finalises members of Panama case JIT, issues operational directives|url=https://www.dawn.com/news/1331269|website=Dawn.com| date=5 May 2017 }}{{cite web|last1=Ali|first1=Kalbe|title=Profiles of JIT members|url=https://www.dawn.com/news/1331433|website=Dawn.com| date=6 May 2017 }}

The JIT members were given the authority to engage and associate local and/or foreign experts to facilitate the investigation of Sharif family's offshore assets. The team also received all powers granted by laws relating to investigation, including those available in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 and the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1975. The directive also stated that the JIT was acting at the direction of the Supreme Court, and all executive authorities in Pakistan must assist and cooperate with the team.

The JIT headquarters was in the Federal Judicial Academy, Islamabad, with a working budget of Rs. 20 million. The team was required to submit reports to the Supreme Court fortnightly and to complete its investigations within 60 days of formation.

The scope of the JIT's investigation included the following ten points, as outlined by the Special Bench of the Supreme Court:{{cite web|last1=Iqbal|first1=Nasir|title=SC judgement implementation bench formed|url=https://www.dawn.com/news/1330769|website=Dawn.com| date=3 May 2017 |access-date=12 July 2017}}{{cite web|title=Panama Case JIT Full Report|url=https://www.scribd.com/document/353599441/Panama-Case-JIT-Full-Report|website=Scribd|access-date=12 July 2017}}

1. How did Gulf Steel come into being?
2. What led to its sale?
3. What happened to its liabilities?
4. Where did its sale proceeds end up?
5. How did they reach Jeddah, Qatar, and the UK?
6. Whether respondent numbers 7 and 8 (Hussain and Hassan Nawaz Sharif), in view of their tender ages, had the means in the early nineties to possess and purchase the London flats?
7. Whether the sudden appearance of al-Thani's letter is a myth or reality?
8. How bearer shares crystallized into the flats?
9. Who, in fact, is the real and beneficial owner of Nescoll Limited and Nielsen Enterprises.
10. How did Hill Metals Establishment come into existence?
11. Where did the money for Flagship Investment Limited and other companies set up/taken over by respondent number 8 (Hassan Nawaz Sharif) come from?
12. Where did the working capital for such companies come from?
13. Where do the large sums, running into millions (Rs. 810 million), gifted by respondent number 7 (Hussain Nawaz Sharif) to respondent number 1 (Nawaz Sharif) drop in from?

Despite controversies, on 10 July 2017, JIT submitted a 275-page report{{Cite news|url=http://www.suchtv.pk/pakistan/general/item/56626-panama-case-jit-complete-report.html|title=Complete Report of Joint Investigation Team (JIT) in Panama Case|work=SUCH TV|agency=SUCH TV NEWS|year=2017}} in the Supreme Court.[http://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/web/page.asp?id=2506 JIT Report] Supreme Court of Pakistan {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180714232759/http://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/web/page.asp?id=2506|date=14 July 2018}} The report requested NAB to file a reference against Sharif, his daughter Maryam, and his sons under section 9 of National Accountability Ordinance. JIT found that Sharif, his sons and his daughter Maryam Nawaz could not justify their income and assets, adding that Maryam Nawaz had been proved the beneficial owner of Nielsen and Nescoll.{{cite news|url=https://www.samaa.tv/pakistan/2017/07/jit-report-recommends-filing-of-reference-against-pm-sons-in-nab/|title=JIT recommends filing of reference against PM, sons in NAB|work=Samaa TV|date=10 July 2017|access-date=10 July 2017}} The report further stated that Maryam was involved in falsifying evidence before the Supreme Court. The basis for this was the use of the Calibri font, first released to the public in January 2007, in documents said to be from 2006.{{cite news|title=JIT report raises doubts about use of 'Calibri' font in papers submitted by Maryam|url=https://www.dawn.com/news/1344654/jit-report-raises-doubts-about-use-of-calibri-font-in-papers-submitted-by-maryam|work=Dawn| date=11 July 2017 |access-date=11 July 2017}}{{cite web|last1=Siddiqui|first1=Zain|title=We asked the creator of Calibri to weigh in on the JIT debate|url=https://www.dawn.com/news/1344685|website=Dawn| date=12 July 2017 |access-date=16 July 2017}} Among other critical findings was the discovery of an offshore company, FZE Capital, managed by Nawaz Sharif until 2014,{{cite web|last1=Bhatti|first1=Haseeb|title=JIT report finds 'glaring discrepancies' in Sharif family's financial history|url=https://www.dawn.com/news/1344435|website=Dawn.com| date=10 July 2017 |access-date=11 July 2017}} and the complete lack of supporting record in the United Arab Emirates related to the sale of Gulf Steel Mill, important to the case as it formed the basis of the 'Qatari letter' money trail.{{cite web|title=Dubai courts have no record of Gulf Steel Mills sale|url=https://pakobserver.net/dubai-courts-no-record-gulf-steel-mills-sale/|website=Pak Observer|access-date=11 July 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171001014023/http://pakobserver.net/dubai-courts-no-record-gulf-steel-mills-sale/|archive-date=1 October 2017|url-status=dead}}{{cite web|last1=Sigamony|first1=Terrence|title=JIT jolts House of Sharifs|url=http://nation.com.pk/national/11-Jul-2017/jit-jolts-house-of-sharifs|website=The Nation|date=11 July 2017 |access-date=11 July 2017}}

Following the JIT report{{Cite web|url=http://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/web/page.asp?id=2506|title=JIT Report|website=www.supremecourt.gov.pk|access-date=2017-08-07|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180714232759/http://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/web/page.asp?id=2506|archive-date=14 July 2018|url-status=dead}} to the court on 10 July 2017, the Supreme Court began to hear arguments a week later. On 21 July 2017, the court concluded the hearings and reserved its judgement.{{cite web| url=https://www.dawn.com/news/1316531/how-pakistans-panama-papers-probe-unfolded| title=How Pakistan's Panama Papers probe unfolded| first=Hasham| last=Cheema| work=Dawn| date=6 July 2018}} On 28 July 2017, the court announced its unanimous decision and disqualified the Prime Minister from holding public office, finding that he had been dishonest in not disclosing his employment and having failed to disclose his un-withdrawn receivables constituting assets in the Dubai-based Capital FZE company in his nomination papers.{{cite web|url=https://www.dawn.com/news/1348191|title=Nawaz Sharif steps down as PM after SC's disqualification verdict|work=Dawn|first=Haseeb|last=Bhatti|date=28 July 2017}} The court also ordered National Accountability Bureau to file a reference against Sharif, his family and his former Finance Minister Ishaq Dar, corruption charges.{{cite news|url=https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/headline/panama-case-verdict-pakistan-supreme-court-disqualifies-pm-nawaz-sharif/|title=Panama Case verdict: Pakistan Supreme Court disqualifies PM Nawaz Sharif|work=Daily Pakistan|date=28 July 2017|access-date=28 July 2017}}{{cite news|last1=Rasmussen|first1=Sune Engel|title=Pakistani court removes PM Nawaz Sharif from office in Panama Papers case|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/28/pakistani-court-disqualifies-pm-nawaz-sharif-from-office|access-date=28 July 2017|work=The Guardian|date=28 July 2017}}{{cite news|title=Supreme Court's complete order in Panama Papers case|url=https://www.dawn.com/news/1348209/supreme-courts-complete-order-in-panama-papers-case|access-date=28 July 2017|work=DAWN.COM|date=28 July 2017|language=en}}{{cite web|url=http://indianexpress.com/article/pakistan/panama-papers-hearing-live-updates-prime-minister-nawaz-sharif-verdict-pakistan-supreme-court-4770732/ | title=Panama Papers hearing LIVE updates: Pakistan PM Nawaz Sharif disqualified from holding office | website=indianexpress.com | date=28 July 2017 | access-date=28 July 2017}} retrieved July 28, 2017

Following the verdict, Nawaz Sharif was disqualified from serving as Prime Minister, and also as leader of the National Assembly.{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40750671|title=Pakistan PM Nawaz Sharif resigns over Panama Papers verdict|work=BBC News|date=28 July 2017|access-date=28 July 2017}} The NAB was ordered by the court to investigate corruption charges against Sharif, his three children and his son-in-law.{{cite web | url=https://www.dawn.com/news/1348209 | title=Full text of Supreme Court order in Panama Papers case | publisher=The Dawn | date=12 December 2017 | access-date=12 December 2017}} Sharif was subsequently barred from public office for life, after the Supreme Court held in Sami Ullah Baloch v. Abdul Karim Nousherwani that electoral disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) would continue in perpetuity.

In response to the apex court's recommendation, NAB filed three references against the former Prime Minister. They pertained to Avenfield flats in London, Flagship Investment offshore company, and the former Al-Azizia Steel Mill respectively.{{Cite web|url=https://www.geo.tv/latest/184942|title=NAB to file three supplementary references against Nawaz|website=GEO TV|language=en-US|access-date=2019-04-14}} The case would now proceed in an accountability court of the Islamabad circuit, under Judge Muhammad Bashir.{{Cite web|url=http://www.samaa.tv/news/2018/02/accountability-court-adjourns-avenfield-hearing-till-afternoon/|title=Accountability Court adjourns Avenfield hearing till this afternoon|website=Samaa TV|language=en-US|access-date=2019-04-14}}

On 6 July 2018, the court sentenced Nawaz Sharif to 10 years imprisonment in the Avenfield reference. The sentence extended to his daughter Maryum Nawaz, and Son-in-Law Retired Captain Safdar, who were given 7 years and 1 year imprisonment respectively.{{Cite web|url=https://www.dawn.com/news/1418482|title=Accountability court terms Sharif family 'monolith' in verdict|last=Iqbal|first=Nasir|date=2018-07-07|website=DAWN.COM|language=en|access-date=2019-04-14}} Sharif and his family appealed against the verdict in the Islamabad High Court.{{Cite web|url=http://www.samaa.tv/news/2018/07/court-to-hear-sharif-familys-appeals-against-avenfield-verdict/|title=Court to hear Sharif family's appeals against Avenfield verdict|website=Samaa TV|language=en-US|access-date=2019-04-14}}

On 18 September 2018, Islamabad High Court suspended the verdict as, according to the presiding judge, Athar Minallah, NAB "was unable to prove a financial link between the former prime minister and the apartments in question".{{Cite web|url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/09/pakistan-court-frees-pm-nawaz-sharif-daughter-180919102546688.html|title=Pakistan court releases ex-PM Nawaz Sharif and daughter|website=www.aljazeera.com|access-date=2019-04-14}}

On 24 December 2018, Sharif was acquitted by the accountability court in the Flagship Investment case due to dearth of evidence.{{Cite web|url=https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2018/12/24/nawaz-arrested-as-court-declares-guilty-in-al-azizia-reference/|title=Nawaz Sharif handed 7-year jail, fined Rs5bn in Al-Azizia reference|website=Pakistan Today|access-date=2019-04-14}} He was, however, sentenced to 7 years imprisonment and fined Rs. 5 billion in the Al-Azizia Steel Mill case.{{Cite web|url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/12/pakistan-pm-nawaz-sharif-sentenced-years-jail-181224100315912.html|title=Former Pakistan PM Nawaz Sharif sentenced to seven years in jail|website=www.aljazeera.com|access-date=2019-04-14}}

On 25 March 2019, Nawaz Sharif was granted a 6-week bail on medical grounds by the Supreme Court with the condition that any medical treatment he receives must be from within Pakistan.{{Cite web|url=https://www.dawn.com/news/1471981|title=Nawaz released from jail after SC approves 6-week bail for medical treatment within Pakistan|last=Bhatti|first=Haseeb|date=2019-03-26|website=DAWN.COM|language=en|access-date=2019-04-14}} 4 weeks later, on 25 April 2019, Sharif filed a review petition in the apex court, pleading to grant him "permanent bail" on the basis of a fresh medical report that stated he suffers from "acute anxiety and depression that will lead to sudden death". He also requested the court to allow him to go abroad for medical treatment.{{Cite web|url=https://tribune.com.pk/story/1959208/1-nawaz-seeks-sc-permission-medical-treatment-abroad/|title=Nawaz seeks 'permanent bail' on medical grounds|date=2019-04-25|website=The Express Tribune|language=en-US|access-date=2019-04-26}} Both requests were turned down,{{Cite web|url=https://www.dawn.com/news/1480002|title=Nawaz Sharif's appeals for extension in bail, treatment in UK turned down by Supreme Court|last=Bhatti|first=Haseeb|date=2019-05-03|website=Dawn|language=en|access-date=2019-05-18}} and Nawaz was put back in jail on 7 May.{{Cite web|url=http://www.samaa.tv/news/2019/05/nawaz-sharif-headed-back-to-lahores-kot-lakhpat-jail/|title=Nawaz Sharif reaches Kot Lakhpat jail|website=Samaa TV|language=en-US|access-date=2019-05-18}}

Meanwhile, his appeal against the Al-Azizia sentencing remains subjudice in the Islamabad High Court.{{Cite web|url=https://dunyanews.tv/en/Pakistan/486124-Nawaz-Sharif-seeks-exemption-from-Al-Azizia-appeal-hearing-in-IHC|title=IHC adjourns hearing of appeal by Nawaz Sharif against Al-Azizia conviction till April 23|website=Dunya News|access-date=2019-04-14}}

The new election for Prime Minister took place on 1 August 2017.{{cite news |title=Shahid Khaqan Abbasi sworn in as prime minister of Pakistan |url=https://www.dawn.com/news/1348953 |work=The Guardian |access-date=11 April 2022 |date=1 August 2017}}

• Fake accounts case

{{Reflist|2}}

{{Nawaz Sharif}}

Category:Supreme Court of Pakistan cases

Category:2016 in Pakistani politics

Category:2017 in Pakistani politics

Category:Corruption in Pakistan

Category:Nawaz Sharif administration

Category:Panama Papers

Category:Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf

Category:Pakistan–Panama relations

Category:Pakistan–Qatar relations