ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Thursday again asked the counsel for Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf chief Imran Khan to clear his client of the allegations that he did not suppress certain information and show discernible material to prove that his former wife Jemima did receive money from him to clear the loan.

`These are not tax hearings or accoundng proceedings, rather our intent is to look that the movement of funds from Mr Khan`s account was from genuine sources,` observed Justice Umar Ata Bandial.

`Being a public office holder though not controlling public money you have to clear yourself that you did not suppress facts and that your wife did receive 562,000 pounds from your accounts to clear the loan you secured from her,` the judge observed.

Senior counsel Naeem Bokhari, who appeared on behalf of Mr Khan, however, presented an email by Mr Khan`s ex-wife Jemima to Rashid Ali Khan, a family friend, conceding that she had received 562,000 pounds f rom the accounts of the Niazi Services Limited(NSL)Mr Khan`s of f shore company on the instructions of Mr Khan.

The counsel, who closed his arguments on Thursday, submitted before a threejudge SCbenchheaded by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar that Rashid Khan had established contact with Ms Jemima who had assured him that she would ask her Anglo-Irish Bank to certify the receipt of the amount she got.

The counsel submitted copies of a letter of April 11, 2003, to the manager (Ashley Cox) of the Barclays Private Bank Limited that maintains the accounts of NSL, asking for transferring a total of 690,307 pounds of which 38,124 pounds were to be credited to Tahir Nawaz the accountant of the offshore company as the proceeds of the London Draycott Avenue flat as well as the April 18, 2003 letter to the same manager, asking him to transfer the money to the Anglo-Irish Bank where Ms Jemima maintains her account.

`We have been able to collect letters written to Ashley Cox, but these are 14 years old,` the counsel argued.

However, senior counsel Akram Sheikh, who represents petitioner Hanif Abbasi of the PML-N, objected to the letter on the grounds that the signatures of Mr Khan in both letters were visibly dif ferent.

Mr Bokhari, however, argued that the movement of funds between husband and wife was different from the loans secured from com-mercial banks.

The petitioner`s counsel contended that these documents were already available with Mr Khan and should have been brought before the court earlier.

But the chief justice reminded that the petitioner had highlighted in his petition that the Banigala property was purchased with the black money, laundered to evade taxes. `This is the burden you have to discharge,` the chief justice observed, adding that Mr Khan still had to prove that he got the remittance from his wife.

The chief justice also observed that these documents should have been furnished before the court earlier, adding that it seemed that the rejoinder filed by Mr Bokhari had not been draf ted by him.

Mr Bokhari emphasised that these statements of accounts had been procured from Zedra which had been taken over by the Barclays Pvt Bank Ltd.

The counsel, however, insisted that these questions had not been highlighted in the petition rather surfaced during the course of proceedings when the court asked about it.

Referring to the question why Mr Khan did not disclose before the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP)the presence of 99,702 pounds in his statement of assets and liabilities in 2003 and that why 75,000 pounds available in the accounts of NSL in Barclays were not disclosed in the subsequent year i.e. 2004, he said: `My answer is that this money was not Mr Khan`s to take away.` As mentioned in the letter of April 18, 2003, to Ashley Cox, the control of this money was with the directors of NSL which had nine shares held by three different companies, the counsel said.

He explained that out of 99,702 pounds, 25,000 pounds went straight to the solicitor who was handling litigation for the recovery of rents of the London flat.

The litigation continued in London as well as Amsterdam, but the entire exercise remained fruitless and money disappeared since all the assets were used up.

Regarding remittance of another tranche of 79,000 pounds, the counsel explained that it came from a Portuguese architect who had designed the Banigala property but had to be returned since the design was faulty and had defects.

The amount was encashed in Pakistan, he said, adding that even 15,000 euros were not allowed to be given to Mr Khan.

The chief justice, however, reminded that earlier the counsel had offered a defence that the money was meant for Mr Khan`s children.

About the allegation that Mr Khan never disclosed before the ECP his flat in One-Constitution Avenue,Islamabad, the counsel explained that when he deposited the first installment in 2013, the flat was never handed over to him, but in the year 2014, he disclosed the property to both the Federal Board of Revenue and the ECP when it became his asset.

About the allegation that Banigala was meant to be a gift back arrangement to evade taxes, Mr Bokhari reiterated that the property from the beginning was meant for Ms Jemima to encourage her to stay in Pakistan. But since the funds were short, Ms Jemima funded the property until the London flat was sold. In case Ms Jemima had chosen not to return the Banigala property, Mr Khan could have done nothing.

Regarding the allegation that NSL was not entitled to take benent of the Tax Amnesty Scheme of 2000, the counsel explained that his client, and not the shell company, had availed the scheme because he was the beneficial owner of the London flat which he declared in 2002. Since there was no flat after its sale, he did not declare the samein 2003.

Mr Bokhari insisted that the petitioner had never accused Mr Khan of laundering money out of Pakistan to build assets by taking benefit of his position as holder of public of fice, though he had monetary exchanges with his exwife after divorce and the loan he secured was paid back to her.