ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought details about the ownership of an offshore company that Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf secretary general Jahangir Tareen claims belonged to his children.

A three-judge Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar is hearing a petition filed by local Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz leader Hanif Abbasi seeking the disqualification of both Imran Khan and Mr Tareen.

On Wednesday, the court asl(ed Mr Tareen`s counsel, Sikander Bashir Mohmand, to submit information regarding the creation of an offshore company as well as a trust, asking who the owners of this company were, in whose name was the title of the company vested, who is the legal and beneficial owner of the company, and how was the amount used tocreate the company sent abroad.

The counsel said these were fair questions and promised to submit the requiredmaterial.However, he argued that the petitioner, instead of standing on his own feet, was basing his entire case on finding Mr Tareen`s name in the Panama Papers and had instituted the petition patently on false assumptions.

Advocate Azid Nafees, representing Hanif Abbasi, hadarguedthatthePTIsec-retary general had publically admitted that his children owned an offshore company for conducting business and holding properties in the UK.

Mr Nafees had also allege d that Mr Tareen had received huge sums of money from his children, which made him the beneficial owner of the businesses and properties in UK a fact he failed to disclose in his tax returns or in the statement of assets and liabilities submitted to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).

This renders him ineligible to contest the election orbecome a member of parliament under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution, the lawyer had argued.

In a miscellaneous application, the petitioner alleged that Mr Tareen had gifted Rs1.48 billion to his children in five years.

His income tax returns from 2010 to 2015 also suggested he had received gifts worth Rs87.5 million from his children in 2010, whereas he received a gift of Rs69.7 million in 2015.

The petitioner asked the court to order Mr Tareen to furnish complete details, along with supporting documents, of the gifts he had given or received since he first assumed public office.

But his counsel argued that the issue of gifts was the subject of litigation pending before the Lahore High Court (LHC) and orders issued so far were in his client`s favour, therefore the same issue cannot be raised before the apex court now.

Mr Mohmand maintained that the petitioner was fishing on the basis of a hunch to find something adverse against Mr Tareen, adding that this was like a `wild goose chase`.

During Wednesday`s proceedings, the chief justice also observed that the court was only concerned with the offshore company so it could ascertain whether the funds used to set it up were sent abroad through legitimate means.

`Nowhere is the giving of gifts by a father to his children or to his siblings, and receiving the same from them, has been held to be illegal. We are not tax authorities that can scrutinise such issues,` the chief justice observed.

When Mr Abbasi`s counsel argued that a different bench had formed a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) to probe allegations that also revolve around the exchange of gifts between the children of the prime minister, Justice Umar Ata Bandial asked him to forget about the JIT.

Mr Nafees explained that Mr Tareen had only disclosed the gifts in his income tax returns after he received notices from tax authorities.

At the outset, the chief justice also asked the petitioner whether cases seele ing the disqualification of parliamentarians should only be brought before the Supreme Court, despite the fact that remedies were available at other forums.

To this, his counsel replied that information regarding Mr Tareen`s off-shore firm surfaced when the Panama Papers case was submitted against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.

He highlighted how the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) had accused Mr Tareen of `insider trading` in 2007, when he was minister for industries.

Admitting the commission of the offence, Mr Tareen had deposited over Rs70 million as gains accrued from insider trading to SECP and also paid a fine, along with reimbursing the regulator`s legal costs.

This rendered him unqualified to contest the elections or become a member of parliament by virtue of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution.

But the chief justice observed that when the amount had voluntarily been paid to the SECP, then the matter was at an end and there was nothing left for adjudication under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution.

`You want the court to declare Mr Tareen nonsagacious 12 years after the regulator has dropped proceedings against him,` the chief justice regretted, adding that anyone who cleared his liabilities should fall under the definition of `honest`, because such actions do not amount to any criminal breach of trust.