Imran govt’s role in £190m deal: Papers show facilitation

ISLAMABAD, JAN 23 (DNA): Did the National Crime Agency (NCA) and the property tycoon finalise the £190 million repatriation deal independently without facilitation by Imran Khan’s government?

Official records, including the sealed note approved by the cabinet, show otherwise.

Matching travel records of the then-special assistant to prime minister (SAPM) Mirza Shahzad Akbar to the UK with the tycoon and the removal of the property czar’s name from the Exit Control List (ECL) at least 20 times during Khan’s regime highlight the government’s key role and active facilitation by the Khan government in striking the deal between the NCA and the tycoon.

After the accountability court sentenced former premier Khan to 14 years in the Al Qadir Trust case, PTI’s senior leadership, including Khan, called it a politically motivated case.

He claimed his government had no role in the NCA deal, and the money’s repatriation was unrelated to the Al Qadir Trust — registered a year before the deal. However, media ’ investigation proves otherwise.

Evidence shows Khan’s claims contradict the facts, linking his government’s facilitation to the deal and raising serious questions about the trust and repatriated funds.

The PTI cites a UK court judgment, stating the settlement was between the NCA and the property tycoon, with no role of Khan or his government.

But did Khan’s government truly play no part in the deal? media investigation uncovers evidence contradicting PTI’s claims and raising serious questions.

The documents reveal that Khan’s government not only facilitated the property tycoon in the NCA deal but also helped him to travel abroad freely by removing his name from the ECL.

The apex court had earlier placed the tycoon’s name on the ECL, but Khan’s government gave him permission at least 20 times between March 2019 and March 2022.

On March 30, 2022, just days before Khan’s government was overthrown through a vote of no-confidence, the government granted the tycoon an eight-week approval to travel abroad. This was the last approval issued, as the tycoon never returned to Pakistan afterwards.

The timing and frequency of these approvals show Khan’s direct role in enabling the tycoon to escape the country, raising questions about the government’s intentions and its alleged support to the real estate mogul.

In fact, whenever the approval duration expired, Khan’s government issued another approval the very next day. This meant the property tycoon was never stopped from leaving the country during Khan’s regime, despite being on the ECL.

Interestingly, the property tycoon, despite being on the ECL, was granted permission to leave the country at least six times during visits of then-SAPM Akbar.

Media reports of that time revealed that Akbar, head of the Asset Recovery Unit (ARU) tasked with bringing back looted money, was seen in the UK with the same tycoon.

Akbar’s travel history was produced before the accountability court. As per Akbar’s travel history, he visited the UK at least 10 times between August 2018 and December 2019.

This was the period when the NCA was investigating the property tycoon’s assets and financial dealings.

Records show that Akbar and the tycoon were in the UK at the same time on several occasions. Was it a coincidence that Khan’s accountability czar was in London during the important junctures in the NCA investigation? This raises serious questions about Khan’s government’s involvement in the matter.

Despite PTI’s claims that the government had no role in facilitating the tycoon, evidence suggests otherwise. The removal of his name from the ECL and Akbar’s frequent UK trips during the investigation contradicts Khan’s denials.

Further proof lies in the sealed note for the prime minister, approved by the federal cabinet on December 3, 2019, which highlights the government’s facilitation of the property tycoon during the NCA’s probe into his financial affairs.

The sealed note for the prime minister, approved by the cabinet on December 3, reveals in para 3: “The government of Pakistan through the ARU facilitated initial freezing order, however, the NCA and the respondents (property tycoon) decision to settle out of court has its own merits and was agreed by the NCA on its own.”

The same sealed note reveals that the agreement between the NCA and the property tycoon could not have materialised without approval from the Khan government.

Para 10 of the note states: “As per the requirement under the Constitution of Pakistan Article (173) and Rules of Business any such undertaking requires approval of the federal government which as per the Mustafa Impex case means approval of the federal cabinet, therefore it is requested that for signing of the deed of the confidentiality, which is placed at Annex-I, the approval of the cabinet may be sought.”

This highlights the government’s essential role in finalising the deal.

Khan’s government not only facilitated the deal between the NCA and the property tycoon but also helped him bring the questioned money back as a remittance and recommended the FBR not to tax it.

Para 10 of the same sealed note reveals: “As the funds are being repatriated to the exchequer in Pakistan, FBR may take into account. The intention of the federal government is not to tax the amount of remittance or any source from which amount is being or will be remitted.

This is also being done in order to enable the execution of the settlement agreement read with the deed of confidentiality.”

Apart from declaring the repatriated money as remittance, Khan’s government also gave a clean chit to the property tycoon regarding the 1 Hyde Park property.

On April 18, 2019, the ARU wrote a letter to the NCA’s country manager, stating that the property was declared with the tax authorities by the tycoon.

The letter also claimed that the tycoon had reached an agreement with the provincial government, giving the impression that no criminal cases or inquiries were pending against him in Pakistan.

However, while issuing this clean chit, no input was sought from the key government departments such as NAB or other relevant authorities.

It is important to note that on March 24, 2021, an “acknowledgement of donation” deed was signed between a housing society and Bushra Bibi. The deed confirms that the property tycoon financed and constructed the Al Qadir University project building, valued at Rs284 million, as assessed by a private evaluator hired by the Al Qadir Trust.

Additionally, the tycoon provided various items, including furniture and fixtures, further contributing to the project. This raises questions about the tycoon’s role in supporting the trust.

MEDIA reached out to Akbar to inquire about his role in facilitating the deal, issuing ECL removal orders, and his frequent trips to the UK. Below is his detailed response to the queries sent via WhatsApp.

Regarding his frequent travels to the UK during the NCA investigation and being there at the same time as the property tycoon, Akbar said: “Official travel (domestic and international) as per Rules of Business 1973 of any SAPM/adviser can be shown from records of Cabinet Division which I do not see as part of the record in reference.

Travel history as per IBMS only shows the travel of a person. During my tenure with the government, I traveled on several occasions abroad in official capacity and private trips as well, however, to categorically answer your question regarding the property tycoon I did not travel with him.”

There would be many people in the UK during my visits to there who had pending issues with various departments of Pakistan, I am not sure if that would be a coincidence too!”

He said many people, including Nawaz Sharif, Shehbaz, Salman Shehbaz, or even Altaf Hussein were also in the UK, adding” “Everyone had issues with LEAs while I was in the government and some even had similar AFOs issued by the NCA and then withdrawn too, now we would not call that coincidence? Would we?”

About removing the property tycoon’s name from ECL, he said” “ECL matters are [a] concern of Interior Ministry and all permission are granted either by the Interior Ministry (i.e. Interior Minister AND NOT THE ADVISOR) or the cabinet subcommittee on ECL.

Though I was a member (please note not a full member as such as SAPM/Advisors as per Rules/Judgment do not have executive authority and cannot act beyond mere giving ‘advice’ Mashwara in Urdu…) of Cabinet ECL Sub Committee which will process ECL addition/deletion and exemption cases as per policy.”

TO BE SPECIFIC I DID NOT APPROVE ANY SUCH PERMISSION AS SAPM HAS NO SUCH AUTHORITY,” he added.

To a question about not consulting any government department in the £190 million case, Akbar replied: “Accountability Court Judgment lacks any force of law and evidence, and as per judges own admission there are many contradictions and shortcomings in prosecution’s case, and it fails to establish any guilt.

It also ignores that though it talks about me but NAB has failed to take my version during the inquiry. I have been writing to NAB since the beginning of its inquiry and posting all letters on my Twitter handle too.”

With no engagement from NAB, I assailed their call notices before the IHC through WP. 3428/2022 (Mirza Shahzad Akbar vs. F.O.P). And the same is still pending where NAB is refusing to take my version and question me through video link despite offering it since 2022, which shows NAB is not interested to know the real facts but to punish Imran Khan.”

Now that the matter will come before the High Court in appeal, it will be prudent to examine the strength of AC Judge’s assumptions and conjectures,” he said.

Regarding the ARU’s missing record, he said: “This is yet another imaginary act alleged against me. The so-called inquiry was one-sided and neither me nor Zia Nasim was made part of this inquiry.

There was no harm in questioning us through video link, an offer I have been giving since 2022 (wrote even to Secretary Cabinet, and publicly tweeted!).”

Additionally, there is a chain of documents to show they are missing, if they are missing? I resigned on 24th January 2022, and handed over whatever was due as per record, and that is in writing too, in the record of ARU and Cabinet Division.”

There was no question raised till the new regime wanted to make a fabricated case against me and Imran Khan. Till today and even in their prosecution they have not specified any document that can be shown to have been sent to ARU or myself and now it is missing.”

Just saying there is no record, isn’t enough! And lastly, SAPM or Chairman ARU is not the record keeper for that sake, and as per rules there are individuals who are tasked with record keeping, but interestingly the allegation is only against a person who wasn’t responsible to begin with,” he added.