*ISLAMABAD – The decision on the Panama cases in the Accountability Courtis expected in the month of June as the cases are fast *inching closertowards concluding the trial.

The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) on Friday completed finalarguments in the Avenfield Apartments reference against the Sharif familyand Sharifs are likely to be punished in the cases based on the evidencespresented in the court.

While arguing for the fourth consecutive day, NAB’s Deputy ProsecutorGeneral Sardar Muzaffar Abbasi concluded arguments in the reference filedagainst deposed prime minister Nawaz Sharif, Maryam Nawaz, Captain (retd)Safdar, Hussain Nawaz and Hassan Nawaz.

In his arguments, the DPG said that the prosecution’s job was to provepossession or ownership of the Avenfield Apartments by the accused andadded it had been proved through ‘independent evidence’.

He said that the ownership of the London flats has been proved throughcorrespondence between the Financial Investigation Agency (FIA) of BritishVirgin Island (BVI) with the Mossack Fonseca in 2012 which was obtained bythe JIT in 2017.

“Also,” he said, “the ownership is proved through the documents pertainingto the registry of title, documents of the Samba Bank and Deutsche Bankamong other things.”

Abbasi argued that the Sharif family never brought any documentary or oralevidence to counter the evidence collected by the Joint Investigation Team(JIT) and NAB.

Referring to Sharif’s speeches, Abbasi said, the ex PM himself said in oneof his addresses that no one keeps properties in his or her name if it ismade through ill-gotten money.

“This is what the NAB’s stand is. He [Sharif] kept the London properties inhis children’s name.”

The prosecutor said all agencies of the world could not have found aboutthe ownership of the Park Lane Apartments had the UK authorities not madeit mandatory to declare properties in 2006.

On the Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) requests, Abbasi said the MLA isstate-to-state communication and “there can be no doubt about it”, adding,“It is admissible evidence in court.”

Abbasi said the Sharif family did not bring Tariq Shafi or the Qatariprince in their defence despite their earlier claim that Shafi and theprince had proved their case.

He said the MLA response from the Dubai authorities had confirmed that theagreement of 1980 and “any transaction regarding the 25 per cent sharessale of the Ahli Steel Mills (ASM) (erstwhile Gulf Steel Mills) does notexist”.

In addition, he said, it was up to the Sharif family to bring Shafi or theQatari prince in their defence to prove that the AED 12 million was givenin cash in 1980.

“At the moment,” he said, “their ‘source’ has been proved wronged.”

The DPG continued that the JIT’s opinion was not binding but relevantbecause the JIT drew its conclusion on the basis of documents placed in theJIT report.

Abbasi argued that Sharif had reiterated that his name was not mentioned inthe Panama Papers and he had no link to it.

“When the charge was framed here in this court, neither did he clearhimself or his children nor did his children say that the propertiesbelonged to them and their father had no connection with it,” he said.

In addition, he said, Sharif never mentioned the Qatari prince or the finalsettlement of the London flats in 2006 during his speeches.

“Also, if the settlement took place in 2006,” he questioned, “why did theynever mention it in their speeches and different interviews?”

Moreover, he said, Robert Radley has no enmity with the Sharifs, his reportis admissible, it came in a sealed envelope and Radley himself appearedbefore the court as a witness to substantiate the evidence.

About his meeting with Radley in London a day before his statement andcross examination in the case, Abbasi said that “there is nothing wrong inmeeting with the prosecution witness prior to his statement”.