The Great Fraud

(From Al-Manshoor Manifesto 2009, now Pakistan World Power Manifesto)

For me, to write what I am going to write, it is again a painful situation. There is hardly anything in Pakistani politics, which is really civilized and truthful. To write about one of its ugliest facets is to open a box, containing a putrefied dead body, in a small room locked from outside.

It was possible to manipulate Asif Zardari and Benazir Bhutto who were allegedly involved in high corruption and the murder of Benazir’s brother Mir Murtaza Bhutto. Musharraf made this possibility a reality. One can think of secret and conspiratorial negotiations which perhaps will never come to light starting from sometime after the elections of 2002 between Musharraf and Asif Zardari, between Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto directly and through their representatives and obviously consultations between Benazir and Asif depending upon the quality of their relationship. Their efforts, collectively, led to the infamous NRO (the ‘National Reconciliation Ordinance’, October 5, 2007), murder of Benazir Bhutto (December 27, 2007), February 18, 2008 Elections and the coming to power of Asif Zardari are the acts which collectively I name here ‘The Great Fraud’, the trio – Musharraf, Asif Zardari and Benazir Bhutto (before she was killed) – committed against the peoples of Pakistan, humanity and civilization.

I believe, nobody would disagree that this all started because Musharraf wanted to prolong his rule.

Obviously there was the overall American-Zionist-Western concern and therefore their guidance, pressure and encouragement according to their perceptions and within the limits of what was possible in any given situation.

The drama ‘Musharrafnama’ of Pakistani politics was going on and Musharraf – the script writer villain – was dominating the stage all the time. The other characters were appearing on the stage with their familiar roles and disappearing to appear again on their next turn. There was nothing very unusual with all this in the minds of the audience – the peoples of Pakistan. But the unusual thing of the drama was that it was getting prolonged and the audience was getting bored. The villain was everywhere for a very long time and still there was no clue as to who would be the hero and when would he appear to overpower and punish the villain. This waiting for the hero by the peoples of Pakistan perfectly fitted into the plan conceived by Musharraf — the villain and the script writer – to become the ‘father figure’ of the nation’ and thus to have the right to remain in power permanently. He proved himself to be not less than a magician!

The villain had prepared a fake hero and worked upon the general outline of how the would-be fake heroine had to look to be made acceptable to the audience. The script writer/villain took care that when the fake hero and heroine appeared on the stage, the audience should not even slightly suspect that some unusual thing had happened. He had so much confidence in the spell of his magic.

And then came that crucial moment when all of a sudden the audience found themselves with a murder scene on the stage. It was totally unexpected for the audience as they were totally absorbed with the normal progress of the drama. They were bewildered and awestruck. They had yet to regain their senses that again all of a sudden a new character appeared on the stage. It took a little while before the new character attracted the attention of the distracted audience.  They recognized him but with some inconvenience and boredom. Because, earlier he had always appeared in some short villainous roles, they remembered. They remembered allegations of his and his wife’s role in plundering peoples’ money and committing murder. But now he appeared as the hero of the play with all the necessary paraphernalia of regality. According to the script, which had been written by our script writer/villain/magician, acceptance of the role of the former small time villain as the new hero by the people was the critical point to the success of the drama as a whole.

To the great relief of the villain, after few moments of pause and associated anxiety, there was a thunderous applause by the audience. The former small time villain was now the hero of the drama. As the drama progressed, he rescued the heroine from many a grave dangers and thus both, the hero and the heroine – Asif Ali Zardari and Democracy — were united to the great happiness of the hero and of the audience. The show continues for the moment. 

The villain who did all this for the sole purpose to avoid fighting the real hero and obviously getting killed had planned to live backstage with everything he had plundered.  For the time being he thought he was succeeding. The fake hero and the fake heroine had attracted the attention of the audience and the villain thought he was going to the background in the consciousness of the audience as he had planned. 

But to explain ‘The Great Fraud’ in this light veined statement using drama, stage, magician etc, as metaphors cannot reflect our reality. The rich and the powerful of Pakistan, the political players and the power holders have left nothing settled in their scramble for power and riches. And this has happened over a period of time under the shadow of American-led West, otherwise our history would not have taken this ruinous route.

Those who led us were so ordinary, small-minded and morally bankrupt that running and keeping the State of Pakistan in a good shape could not have been their job. But then only they were available. It was and is a sort of their monopoly. Therefore, it should be very clearly understood that there never was an alternative.   

‘The Great Fraud’ is too much for us to bear. The leading trio – Musharraf, Asif Zardari and Benazir – and their associates under the patronage of the American-led West have committed the crime of the century against the peoples of Pakistan, humanity and civilization.

If you are so naïve that you can be made to believe that your money can be doubled, some Double Shah would appear and take away whatever you have. And casting his spell on you at the same time, he would make you incapable of ever suspecting him. You will blame others, as other events will happen in the meantime which will confuse you leading you to believe deeply that others are preventing Double Shah from returning your doubled money to you.

If you shout ‘Kashmir Kashmir’ for many years, some magician will come to play ‘Kashmir’ with you. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto did this with you. You again continued to shout ‘Kashmir Kashmir’ and another magician appeared on the scene. He again played with you ‘Kashmir’ but named it Kargil. The demagogues use what people believe in or what becomes sacred to them. They ditch their victims and try to play themselves victims as the roller of history – from which no demagogue can escape — starts approaching them.

On the same lines the Americans-Zionists used Jihad to plan their 9/11 so that Christian opinion in the West could be galvanized to attack Afghanistan, Iraq and then Iran. Now one is compelled to think that Pakistan was too in the list.  

This time Musharraf used ‘Democracy’. Shouting ‘Democracy Democracy’ has been a perpetual phenomenon in Pakistan. Musharraf thought why not use it. It was the cleverest move ever happened in Pakistan. Instead of getting treatment to get out of the addiction of political power, Musharraf has humiliated everybody in Pakistan. He has left no meaning in the lives of the masses or of any self-respecting person in Pakistan. The realization of this humiliation was clearly manifest on the faces of lawyers and others who had been struggling so valiantly for clearing the way of the judges who had been prevented from going to their courts. Zardari and Benazir became accomplices of Musharraf. All three of them along with their leading associates will have to face trial in the court of history for ‘The Great Fraud’. I repeat that the crimes of ‘The Great Fraud’ do not include other innumerable crimes committed by this trio earlier or the remaining two later.

The negotiations and consultations, I mentioned while defining ‘The Great Fraud’ in the beginning above, must have led to an understanding between the three to work together. But yet at another level an understanding was reached between Musharraf and Zardari in which Musharraf accepted and recognized the leadership qualities of Zardari. In fact it seems they must have become a sort of ‘ideological friends’. They must have agreed with each other that they both really ‘understood the world’. All these tasks seem to have been given a shape before the release of Zardari from prison on November 22, 2004.

All of the three involved in the game of “The Great Fraud” – Musharraf, Benazir and Zardari – had their own agendas. Yes, Zardari and Benazir were not one in this game. They were like three professionals who planned a bank robbery but, from the outset, were not faithful to each other and would quarrel immediately after they succeeded in looting the bank.

“Benazir lives in Dubai, Zardari in a New York apartment with his dogs. … Benazir did not stay with her husband when she visited the Big Apple last September [2006], choosing instead to reside with a friend there.” This was reported in the Pakistani press on 28-01-2007. And the New York Times reported on 01-01-2008: “During Ms. Bhutto’s two terms as prime minister, the couple was charged with embezzling $1.5 billion in government funds. Mr. Zardari became known as ‘Mr. Ten Percent’ for the kickbacks he reportedly collected on government contracts. For the past three years, he has lived in a lavish apartment on the Upper East Side of Manhattan.”

Therefore, the conclusion is that Benazir and Zardari were not working as a team. They had no common dreams now, if they ever had earlier, of their future. Simply put, they were not one party. And if we add to this that Zardari was in jail in Pakistan for about 8 years which means that practically they could not have worked together for many years. It means there were two parties under the cover of one party. Therefore we can say with more certainty that for Zardari, Benazir was not the leader but the main stumbling block in not giving way to his ambition for power. How much prepared he was for the turn of events and how much suppressed ambition he was carrying within him should be clear to any sane person by now. In fact, for her being the wife of Zardari, it was like carrying a time bomb in her purse all the time and, obviously, being unaware or not fully aware of it.    

Now the end of the game is in front of us. The biggest losers are the peoples of Pakistan and, I believe, the loss to the judiciary was also peoples’ loss. Benazir lost her life. But Musharraf is not a loser as he quitted according to his own plan ‘B’. And, obviously for the time being, Zardari and Americans are the clear winners.      

Most probably, the murder of Benazir was done with an ‘implicit consent’ not because she started acting against the ‘deal’ when she saw the mood of the people after she arrived in Pakistan as many of her apologists claim, but for other reasons and the decision to eliminate her must have been taken before her arrival in Pakistan.

Leaving aside the other resources of the party, I believe, Asif Zardari even alone had all the means to protect Benazir. He did not need any government help in this regard. For him, this was a one hundred percent doable job. No attempt on her life could have ever succeeded if Zardari had made it his mission to protect her. And why protection of Benazir should not have been his mission?

Then, what happened? Although nobody can be certain, but it seems Musharraf and Zardari had ganged up against her, each for his own reasons — one wanting her off the stage and the other letting the killers kill her. There were so many around her, but no real protector who should have been in command of the whole situation. I believe, she was left alone to die. That her story should end immediately and completely in Pakistan, hence her murder should be probed by the United Nations! 

It seems that she was thought to be an outdated person, a misfit and a liability in the future scenario as contemplated by the other two. And Americans seem to have not disagreed. “Shaheed Benazir” must have been thought to be more beneficial than a living and active “Politician Benazir”.

Due to low quality politics of Pakistan, it has hardly been ever stated that Benazir was not a woman of ideas. And apart from being an incompetent person, she had a far bigger and distorted image of herself, which made her unqualified to play as a team partner in any enterprise – right or wrong.  And therefore on various issues, it must have been very difficult for others to have comfortable interaction with her, which is necessary for running a good government. And then, whatever she was, she had passed her usefulness for the era Musharraf, Zardari and Americans were visualizing ahead. If Zardari led her to the path of corruption and the murder of her brother to clear the path for their ‘dynasty’, the real leader was Zardari not Benazir. Therefore was not Benazir blocking the career of Zardari, while herself being a spent force? And finally all along there was the American-led West, Americans and Israelis to be more specific, to oversee, advise and guide as the project was progressing.

Many in Pakistan may not believe in magic. They must be proud of their ‘modern’ minds. But when Musharraf tried his ‘magic’ on them, they all fell under its spell. There was no survivor to laugh at the magician! He was destroying everything around him to give us ‘democracy’. And they accepted it was democracy. The intelligentsia in Pakistan is too naïve!

A really unprecedented phenomenon has happened in Pakistan. Within the farce of Pakistani politics, another big farce of unimaginable dimensions and ungraspable by others has been played with the peoples of Pakistan. One is compelled to acknowledge the audacity of the perpetrators of this crime. What they can do next, we must be careful and not fix limits.

As I stated above that the cases of high corruption and murder by Zardari and Benazir became the basis for Musharraf to use whatever was left of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s legacy to cling to power, eliminate Benazir and bring Zardari to power under him. What democracy had to do with all this? But when it happened and the bride of ‘Democracy’ entered Pakistan, everyone stood in respect. Such is the poor state of politics in Pakistan! And the lawyers too did the same!! There was nobody to formulate the right cause and lead the people to fight for it.  

It is really a disgusting experience to go through what has been reported about Musharraf,  Benazir and Zardari vis-à-vis The Great Fraud of which a selected reading has been put in the Appendix at the end of the manifesto.

And, now, through this manifesto, I present this case, first, in the court of the people and ask them to rise to the occasion and punish the trio – Musharraf, Benazir and Zardari — and their accomplices according to the severity of their crimes. As long as these thugs remain in the political arena, it will remain impossible that our people can ever get even the minimum space to pull their lives with their self-respect intact. The presence of these dirty elements will never allow any reasonable agenda within the accepted civilized parameters of governance to materialize. This cancerous part of our body politic has to be removed for the health of the society as a whole. And this will go a long way in setting the record straight thus uplifting our nation to a higher level of political consciousness. We should never waste this opportunity.

I believe the case of ‘The Great Fraud’ against Zardari, Musharraf and Benazir will be upheld by a court in a revolutionary Pakistan when on behalf of peoples of Pakistan the court will be told that a lawyer representing Asif Ali Zardari had said in a court in Britain on 16 August 2004 that Mr Zardari was the “beneficial owner” of the Rockwood properties. [17-8-2004 Dawn].

And that “under the settlement arrived at between Mr Zardari and the [Musharraf] government as part of the bargain envisaged in the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO), the latter has conceded that it will cooperate with the former to enable him to obtain any of the asset (now no more under litigation) without any claim on its part.” And that “The price of the Rockwood estate, bought in 1995 by Mr Zardari presumably for £4.35 million, is now said to be worth over $7 million.” [Dawn, March 23, 2008] And that 60 million dollars ‘belonging’ to Zardari but actually belonging to the peoples’ of Pakistan were released by the Swiss government which were frozen in 1997 at the request of the Nawaz Sharif government. That the assets were released after the attorney general of Pakistan notified the Swiss government that he was no longer investigating Mr Zardari. [Dawn, 29-8-2008] And that Musharraf and Zardari played their games because Benazir along with her party assets was the central player of ‘The Great Fraud’. That she lost her life in this unholy enterprise does not absolve her of the crimes she committed against the peoples of Pakistan.* ■

 *Appendix

The Great Fraud Related Reports 26 items: A Selected Reading ….

1. The hunt for Benazir’s booty

Britain was always Benazir Bhutto’s safe haven. Will it now destroy her? As British police seek damning evidence, Stephen Grey and Rajeev Syal uncover a secret, multi-million-pound treasure trail. [The Sunday Times April 12, 1998. http://www.mqm.com/bb-booty-times-1998-04-12.htm]

Robert Ranson, a Surrey farmer, watched as a dashing figure in a polo shirt and jodhpurs reined in his galloping Arab stallion and waved from the gates of his new country manor.

“It was the only time I saw the man who bought this estate,” said Ranson last week. “I had been told to prepare a polo field in the grass because someone called Zardari was arriving. He was surrounded by a large group of other Pakistani men.” The new owner of the Rockwood estate near Godalming – in one of the most expensive stretches of countryside in Britain – was Asif Ali Zardari, a small-time property developer from a family of modest means who had married one of the world’s most glamorous women, Benazir Bhutto.

At the time of his visit, in the summer of 1996, she was the prime minister of Pakistan. Nearly two years later, Zardari, Bhutto, Rockwood and a web of other properties and financial activities are the focus of an inquiry that, according to Pakistani investigators, involves the disappearance of $1.5 billion (£900m) from the public purse.

These investigators accuse Zardari, and by complicity Benazir, of taking secret kickbacks from airline, power station and pipeline projects, rice deals, customs inspections, defence contracts, land sell-offs, even government welfare. They allege that while the kickbacks were organised by Zardari, Benazir knew what was going on. As prime minister and finance minister, she had to approve many government contracts personally.

Benazir and her husband have often been accused of corruption. She was twice dismissed from office on such charges. But she consistently denied wrongdoing and nobody produced any evidence that stuck. Now, however, the Swiss government has frozen about £8.7m in 17 Bhutto family bank accounts and the inquiry has shifted to Britain. . . .

Inquiries by The Sunday Times have revealed that four separate properties worth more than £4m are under investigation, along with 12 offshore companies and six London bank accounts. . . .

IT WAS all so different when Benazir first came to power in 1988 as the first woman prime minister of the Muslim world. Oxford-educated, newly married and only 35 years old, she had a glittering international reputation. . . .

Benazir declared war on the “avaricious politicians” who were looting the national finances of developing countries. Soon, however, her husband had acquired the nickname “Mr 10%” as rumours spread that he was receiving kickbacks on contracts.

He was a man of limited wealth and limited education, having had a brief spell of business studies in Paddington, west London. The marriage had been an arranged union organised by Benazir’s mother, Nusrat Bhutto. But, say many observers, Benazir quickly came to depend on him emotionally.

Dismissed on unproven corruption charges in 1990, she was none the less elected prime minister again in 1993. Now Zardari was not “Mr 10%” but “Mr 30%”. Benazir made him investment minister. Power, say some of her former associates, went to her head.

“She no longer made the distinction between the Bhuttos and Pakistan,” said Hussain Haqqini, Bhutto’s former press secretary. “In her mind she was Pakistan, so she could do as she pleased.”

Her political downfall was sealed in 1995 in a hotel room overlooking Hyde Park in London. . . .

An explosive offer was being discussed. A mystery source wanted $10m for a few photocopied pieces of paper. The source was not prepared to show the documents in advance but he claimed they were items from the office of Jens Schlegelmilch, a Geneva lawyer and the Bhutto family’s agent in Europe. They proved, he claimed, that Benazir and her family had secretly been amassing a fortune in Swiss bank accounts by taking corrupt commissions on government contracts. . . .

In February 1997, the Pakistan Muslim League had won a general election and had immediately launched an official investigation into Benazir. Teams of investigators, including agents from the British branch of Kroll Associates, the private detective firm, began scouring Europe for evidence against the Bhutto clan. . . .

Sources say $1m was handed over in return for the documents. For Benazir’s enemies, this Swiss dossier was cheap at the price. . . .

This is what the Swiss dossier contained. They made compelling reading: signed letters offering commission from multinationals in return for Pakistani government contracts; deeds of incorporation of secret front companies to receive the kickbacks; and transfers and deposits of millions of dollars between Swiss bank accounts.

The name “Zardari” was scattered throughout; so was “Nusrat Bhutto”, and scribbled down in a handwritten cash ledger was also the famous “BB”, the initials by which Pakistan knows Benazir.

At the centre of all the transactions were British offshore companies. Their ownership was disguised with the use of nominee shareholders but they were also traceable to the Bhutto family. The Swiss bank accounts of the same companies also showed a series of money transfers to London – including to Zardari’s own bank accounts and to a close friend of Benazir.

Benazir says the documents in the Swiss dossier are forgeries, but they have been accepted as authentic by the Swiss government and by leading lawyers, including Clifford Chance in London, who act for the Pakistani government. Marc-Andre Salamin, the Swiss ambassador to Islamabad, declared that the Pakistanis had “provided enough reliable evidence” to freeze the Bhutto accounts. . . .

The Schlegelmilch dossier contains a series of letters of agreements between French, Swiss and Middle Eastern firms for the payment of commissions to the British offshore firms. At the centre of all the deals was Schlegelmilch, who incorporated at least five companies in the British Virgin Islands (BVI) between 1990 and 1995. Under the offshore islands’ law, the true owners were legitimately concealed from public examination. But secret bank mandate documents and shareholder agreements, made available to The Sunday Times, indicate that, if genuine, the real owner was either Zardari or Nusrat Bhutto.

The most lucrative contract discovered was a $4 billion deal to buy 32 Mirage jets from the French company Dassault. The documents, which include letters from Dassault executives, indicate an agreement was reached to pay a 5% “remuneration” – about $200m – to Marleton Business, a BVI company controlled by Zardari.

A fax from Dassault specified that for “reasons of confidentiality” only one copy of the pay-off contract would be made, kept at the company’s headquarters. Dassault has not denied the allegations. The deal fell apart after Benazir was dismissed in 1996.

Two Swiss companies, the Société Général de Surveillance (SGS) and Cotecna, its former subsidiary, are also implicated in $11.8m pay-offs for a $131m contract to supervise Pakistan’s customs service. Last December SGS admittted it paid a substantial commission on this contract to Schlegelmilch, confirming the substance of the leaked documents which showed that the money was paid to the accounts of Bomer Finance Incorporated, owned by Zardari.

Further documents and bank transfers record details of another pay-off from Abdul Razzak Yaqub, a Dubai gold dealer who allegedly paid cash to Capricorn Trading, a Virgin Island company controlled by Zardari, in return for an exclusive licence to import gold into Pakistan. Banking documents show two transfers of $5m into Capricorn’s accounts from Yaqub’s company. He denies paying any kick-back and says the documents are forgeries. The final evidence of pay-offs is a series of invoices from Schlegelmilch to ZPC Ursus, a Polish tractor company. 

All Zardari’s offshore companies had Swiss bank accounts, many of them simply numbers. The weekly interest he was receiving was more than the annual income of $13,100 he had declared on his 1996 Pakistani tax return. (Benazir admitted owning no foreign bank accounts or properties that year; she had paid no income tax at all as prime minister in 1993 and 1994.)

The true ownership of these accounts was discovered through banking mandate documents in Switzerland bearing the signatures of Zardari and Nusrat Bhutto. These show that Bomer Finance, one of the Virgin Islands companies that received money into its Geneva numbered bank accounts, was owned by Zardari. Another, Mariston Securities, which received money from customs kickbacks, was allegedly owned by Nusrat Bhutto.

As a result of these investigations the money trail can be followed to Britain, which was not only the Bhutto clan’s refuge but also apparently its shopping mall.

After Benazir’s first removal from office in 1990 the emphasis was on property. In December a letter from Tarlo Lyons, solicitors, records the purchase for £245,000 of a flat at Palace Mansions, Hammersmith Road, west London, by Mariston Securities. Money for the deal also came from Nassam Overseas, another offshore company set up by Schlegelmilch.

A year later, a flat in Queensgate Terrace, South Kensington, changed hands for £500,000 from one offshore company owned by an Iraqi to another apparently linked to Zardari. Rumoured by the neighbours to be Benazir’s emergency “bolt hole”, the flat has been empty for years. The bills are settled by a friend of Benazir in London.

In October 1994, a year after Benazir returned to power in Pakistan, there appears one of the biggest transfers of money to London: £50,000 was sent directly from the numbered account at Union Bank of Switzerland (UBS) into Zardari’s own personal account at Barclays Bank, Knightsbridge, in October 1994.

On the same day, October 8, a customer walked into the showroom of David Morris, a Bond Street jeweller, and bought a single piece of jewellery for £100,000. The identity of the customer remains a secret. “It is a matter of client confidentiality,” said a senior member of staff last week. No matter: the bill was settled by transfer from account 552343UK of UBS, which belonged to Bomer Finance Incorporated, Zardari’s Virgin Islands company.

Exactly what was bought also remains a secret; but at the time Pakistan was alive with rumours that Zardari had bought Benazir a diamond “considered too expensive by an Arab prince”. Another payment of £50,000 went to an account belonging to an A Ali with a NatWest branch in Aldwych, central London. According to private investigators, “confidential sources” have revealed this was Zardari’s account. Related accounts at the same branch stand in the name of an “Asif Zardari Ali”, they allege.

A further bank transfer to Britain records $48,000 spent on buying horses from Horsewalker Ltd, an Ipswich company, in March 1995.

In August 1995, Zardari’s parents, Harkim and Zarrin, who had little apparent wealth before his marriage, appeared to acquire a London property in Wilton Crescent, Belgravia, worth at least another £500,000. The lease is registered with another British offshore company in Jersey. Harkim and Zarrin are also registered owners of a manor in Normandy known as the House of the White Queen.

A MONTH after the purchase of the Wilton Crescent lease, Zardari arrived in London to stay at the Lanesborough Hotel at Hyde Park Corner. His mind was on bigger things: the purchase of a £2.5m country manor in Surrey.

Between May and September four new companies were formed on the Isle of Man, the owners concealed by nominee shareholders; on October 19 they acquired together the 355-acre Rockwood estate.

Detailed evidence seen by The Sunday Times demonstrates what extraordinary lengths were taken to conceal the Bhutto family’s connection to the property. But Zardari could not keep himself away from the place. Within days he was wandering into the local pub, the 14th-century Dog and Pheasant, and ordering a cup of coffee. He liked the pub so much that he wanted to buy it. “He said, ‘How much and when can I have it?’,” said Chris Morris, the licensee, who then worked as a barman.

Rebuffed, Zardari sent workmen to measure the oak beams and the bar so they could be recreated in his mansion 300 yards away. “We all thought it was funny that this millionaire wanted to recreate our pub not a stone’s throw from the original,” said Morris.

The purchase of Rockwood opened up the village to an influx of Pakistani tourists. Every few weeks a group of Asians in a convoy of cars would arrive to stare at the three-storey mansion. One local claims to have seen Benazir herself get out of a car. She and Zardari have consistently denied owning the estate but evidence has been gathered by the Pakistani government which contradicts that claim.

Rockwood House was refurbished under the supervision of Shabnam Pasha, wife of Javed Pasha, a college friend of Zardari, says the Pakistani government. Javed Pasha said: “I have been hearing these allegations [against Zardari and Benazir] for the past 1 1/2 years . . . The Pakistani government is guilty of victimisation.”

There have long been rumours that much of Zardari’s frenzied commercial activity may have been to feather a nest not for Benazir but for some other girlfriend. Benazir, in a tearful moment, told a reporter last year that Zardari might have bought Rockwood for “some other woman”.

“I don’t know whether my husband has had an affair or not. He tells me he didn’t. I don’t know if he bought Rockwood or not,” she said. But Pakistan’s investigators believe responsibility lies with Benazir herself. The strongest proof of joint ownership of Rockwood is the consignment of furniture sent there from Benazir’s house in Karachi in 1996. It contained 23 guns, 10 swords and dozens of pieces of furniture that were dispatched in eight crates under cover of diplomatic immunity and without duty. They were claimed to be the personal effects of Wajid Shamsul Hasan, the then high commissioner of Pakistan. But they were collected by a Bedfordshire businessman involved in Rockwood’s refurbishment and delivered to the estate. Faxes, air bills and packing documents all clearly show that the goods came from Benazir’s home.

The investigators also want to know why Benazir’s personal friends had access to Zardari’s money if she herself was not involved. One of them, Farida Ataullah, alleged by the Pakistani government to be a “confidential private secretary” of Benazir, received a transfer of £100,000 into her Harrods bank account from Bomer funds.

The Pakistanis allege that Ataullah was involved in setting up property deals for Benazir. Ataullah, who is now in Dubai, confirmed last week that she is a close associate of Benazir but said the allegation of receiving a £100,000 cheque was “too personal to comment on”.

She was repeatedly asked if she wished to deny any of the allegations, which she did not. Leila Khan, her sister, said it was likely she was doing shopping for Benazir in Harrods. “They are very dear friends, that’s it,” said Khan. “I don’t think she knows where the money came from, no way. She’s very close friends with Asif [Zardari] and she probably used it to do some shopping for Benazir. Simple as that.”

Another close friend, Victoria Schofield, a journalist who was at Oxford with Benazir, has also been drawn into the investigation. The Pakistani government is to ask British police to ask Schofield why she is a co-signatory of a Zardari London bank account, the same one that was paid money from the Bomer offshore account.

Schofield said last week that as the matter was under investigation, she could not comment. Zardari also uses her address for his bank statements and Schofield keeps an eye on Benazir’s property in South Kensington and pays its electricity bills.

A further crucial indicator seized on by the investigators is that, although the Bomer company was in theory owned 100% by Zardari, the money log for its bank account, handwritten by Schlegelmilch, records “50% AAZ = 50% BB” – suggesting a division between Zardari and Benazir. Schlegelmilch has not denied the authenticity of this document. . . .

THE attempts to prove a Benazir connection with the London accounts and offshore companies has involved frenzied surveillance and investigation in Britain. Surveillance during a visit to London in April last year was so intense that Kroll withdrew its watchers “when our surveillance team identified another team operating in the same area”.

The Pakistani government campaigned hard for the British government to investigate. Nawaz Sharif, the Pakistani prime minister, pressed Tony Blair for action at the last Commonwealth leaders’ conference in Edinburgh. . . .

Benazir herself is adamant about her innocence and denounces the “irreparable damage to my standing in the world”. She says her family is rich, but certainly not by European standards. “Most of the documents are fabricated and the stories that have been spun around them are absolutely wrong,” she has stated.

2. Swiss court indicts agent of Benazir, Zardari, Nusrat

ASSOCIATED PRESS OF PAKISTAN NEWS SUMMARY 03-06-1998

ISLAMABAD, Jun 3 (1998): The Ehtesab Bureau made a major breakthrough when Swiss Court Judge Daniel Davaud passed indictment orders at Geneva on Tuesday against Jens Schlegelmilch, a close confidante, frontman and agent of Benazir Bhutto, Asif Ali Zardari and Nusrat Bhutto on Charges of corruption and money laundering in Switzerland. The Judge had also indicted earlier Hans Vischer, the representative of SGS, who was closely involved in corruption unleashed in Pakistan by Bhuttos in the Pre-shipment inspection scandal in Pakistan says a press release issued by the Ehtesab Bureau here. The Judge has further pronounced the indictment of Robert Massey the Managing Director of Cotecna who was working in close collaboration with SGGs and the Bhuttos causing huge loses to the national exchequer of Pakistan on the charges of money laundering in Switzerland. the judge also confirmed his intention to proceed with indictment of Asif Ali Zardari. Regarding former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, the judge intends to proceed with her indictment after checking whether she can benefit from Immunity.

http://www.fas.org/news/pakistan/1998/06/980603-app.htm

3. Kickbacks were jointly shared by Benazir, Zardari: Swiss judge

[PRESS TRUST OF INDIA:  Monday, July 20, 1998]  

ISLAMABAD, July 19: A Swiss judge investigating into the money-laundering charges against former Pakistani premier Benazir Bhutto’s husband Asif Ali Zardari has confirmed that the couple equally shared the kickbacks received during the previous regime in Pakistan.

The judge, Daniel Devaud, in his international rogatory letter has issued comprehensive charges against Zardari on allegation of money laundering and also confirmed that the amount of kickbacks received used to be equally shared by Benazir and Zardari, according to a statement issued by Accountability Bureau of Prime Minister’s office.

The statement further said that the rogatory letter will be handed over to the Pakistani authorities tomorrow by the Swiss ambassador here but its fax copies have been made available to the bureau.

The judge has mentioned in the letter that a hand-written accounting ledger maintained by a Zardari’s frontman mentioned “50 per cent Asif Ali Zardari, 50 per cent Benazir Bhutto”, the statement said.

The judge also confirmed the amount of kickbacks was in return for grant of 19.5 billion dollar pre-shipment inspection contract of SSG and COTECNA causing colossal loss to the country.

The chargesheet against Zardari also said he used off-shore companies for receiving commissions against the government contracts during the Benazir Bhutto regime from 1993 to 1996.

In the meantime, Benazir’s Pakistan People’s Party has demanded judicial inquiry into the misuse of public fund to the tune of 18 million dollars and Rs 2 billion for carrying out “media trial” of the former premier and her family.

However, PPP senator, Raza Rabbani, alleged that the Nawaz Sharif government and the accountability bureau is trying to malign the Opposition leader. [http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/ie/daily/19980720/20150304.html]

A Note: Musharraf takes over on October 12, 1999. Elections are held on October 10, 2002

4. Cases against Benazir, Zardari may be reviewed
   [Dec 1, 2002]

Islamabad, November 30: In a significant move, the coalition government in Pakistan headed by Mir Zafarullah Jamali may review corruption cases against former prime minister Benazir Bhutto and her husband Asaf Ali Zardari. Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat and Defence Minister Rao Sikandar have reportedly sought details of all cases against the two from the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), the News reported today. –UNI [http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20021201/world.htm#5]

5. Benazir and Zardari found guilty
   Alison Langley (NYT) Published: August 6, 2003

A Swiss magistrate has found former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and her husband guilty of money laundering. They were given six-month suspended jail terms, fined $50,000 each and were ordered to pay $11 million to the Pakistani government. The six-year-long case alleged that Ms. Bhutto, who lives in exile in London and Dubai, and her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, deposited in Swiss accounts $10 million given them by a Swiss company in exchange for a contract in Pakistan. The couple said they would appeal.

6. Swiss Court and the Benazir-Zardari Plunder Saga
   By S. Arif Hussaini April 30, 2004

Benazir and her husband, Asif Zardari, have both sought to avoid appearing on April 23, as summoned, before a Swiss Magistrate investigating the re-opened case against them of graft and money laundering. They have petitioned the Swiss court to postpone the hearing till after Zardari, advised an 8-week rest by a medical board, is fit to undertake the air trip.

While Benazir was in self-imposed exile to avoid arrest in a three-year jail sentence awarded to her by a Pakistani court and having to face numerous other corruption cases pending in different courts, Zardari was at that time in Rawalpindi defending himself in the well-known graft case in which he is alleged to have received some ten million dollars in commission for arranging an exclusive import permit for a gold bullion trader of Pakistani origin, Abdul Razzak Yaqub (ARY) who lives in Dubai and has his businesses there. He owns the satellite TV called ARY that has a discernible tilt towards Benazir.

Zardari is already in custody undergoing a seven-year sentence for receiving commission in a contract involving the government owned Karachi Steel Mills. The sentence will run till September, 2009, if there is no remission. There are 17 cases of corruption pending against him.

As he could fly from Karachi to Rawalpindi and was apparently all right, the government offered to arrange a chartered plane to take him to Switzerland by the due date. But, he declined the offer. He had acquired the medical certificate weeks earlier in Karachi, in all probability soon after learning that he was required to present himself in a Swiss court. Copies of the court summons were sent to his address in Switzerland, his lawyers both Pakistani and Swiss, his Swiss partner, Jens Schlegelmitch, and to Benazir. …

Citibank provided the US Senate Subcommittee on Investigations that was probing international money laundering activities with details of four case studies of world public figures engaged in money laundering. One of these figures is Asif Ali Zardari.

The Sub-committee, headed by Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, was informed, inter alia, that on February 27, 1995 (during the second tenure of Benazir as Prime Minister) three company accounts were opened at the Citibank Switzerland. The accounts were opened in the name of M.S. Capricorn Trading, which already had an account at Citibank’s Dubai branch, as well as Marvel and Bomer Finance, two other British Virgin Island private investment companies. Each of these accounts listed Mr. Schlegelmilch, Zardari’s partner, as the account contact and signatory. Mr. Zardari was described in the documents as the owner of all these accounts. When the accounts were frozen in late 1997, they had around $13/8 [?] million in deposits.

Questioned by the US Senate Subcommittee about these accounts and the testimony of Citibank, Benazir audaciously insisted that they were all fabricated, and incorrect!![http://www.pakistanlink.com/hussaini/04302004.html]

7. Surrey Palace sold for £4.3m, says govt

Dawn: July 17, 2004

ISLAMABAD, July 16: The Rockwood Estate, known as Surrey Palace in Britain and allegedly owned by PPP chairperson Benazir Bhutto and Asif Zardari, was sold on Friday for over 4.3 million pounds sterling, a Pakistan government spokesman said. The spokesman said in a statement the sale was effected by a liquidator of a number of Isle of Man Trust companies created to disguise the true identity of the beneficial owners of the property. He said the liquidator was acting with the authority of the Pakistani government which, according to him, claimed the net proceeds of sale on behalf of the people of Pakistan. The statement said the claim was accepted by the liquidator. “It is widely believed that the true owners of the Rockwood Estate, popularly known as the Surrey Palace, were former prime minister Benazir Bhutto and her husband Asif Ali Zardari,” the spokesman said.

But a PPP spokesman rejected the charge about Ms Bhutto owning the property. The government spokesman said the purchaser of the property was a local businessman, who already owned an adjoining property.

The sale of the property has a long and tortuous history which may not yet be over. Proceedings are due to take place shortly in the Isle of Man when the liquidator will seek the sanction of the high court there to release the proceeds of sale to the Pakistan government.

The spokesman said the acceptance of the government’s claim and the sale of the estate was a tribute to the tenacity and unceasing efforts to recover the nation’s looted wealth.

PPP spokesman Senator Farhatullah Khan Babar, in a statement, said: “Neither the property belonged to Ms Bhutto nor she was concerned as to who sold it to whom and for what purpose.”

8. Asif owns Rock wood property: lawyer

APP/Dawn 17-8-2004

ISLAMABAD, Aug 16 (2004): A lawyer representing Asif Ali Zardari in a court in Britain has said that Mr Zardari is the “beneficial owner” of the Rock wood properties, says a communication received from the Isle of Man in the UK.

The communication stated that Mr Zardari had instructed his lawyer to contest the petition filed by the official liquidator of the Rock wood Estate. His lawyer is also reported to have told the court that his client (Mr Zardari) had made an offer to the liquidator on Aug 13 to pay off the debts owed by three offshore companies based in the Isle of Man.

The court adjourned the hearing until Dec 20 to give interested parties, including Asif Ali Zardari and the government of Pakistan, an opportunity to prepare and file contesting documents.

In November 2003, the government of Pakistan had entered into a conditional agreement with the liquidator of the three Isle of Man companies, according to which the net proceeds of the liquidations, after paying off “certain legitimate creditors”, would be handed over to Pakistan. The agreement was subject to the approval of the court. Subsequently, the liquidator had petitioned the court for its approval.

The Pakistani government had been contending that the Rock wood properties had been purchased by Benazir Bhutto and Asif Ali Zardari with proceeds of corruption, the identity of the true purchasers being deliberately concealed behind a network of trusts and companies. The government had also contended that Pakistan was entitled to recover the properties, or the proceeds of sale, for the benefit of the people of Pakistan.

Until July 2004, the Rock wood properties, commonly referred to in Pakistan as the ‘Surrey Palace,’ were registered in the names of three Isle of Man companies, all of which were in liquidation. Last month, the properties were sold. The Rock wood Estate was sold on July 16 for £4.35 million. The liquidator was acting with the authority of the NAB.

A Note: Zardari was freed from jail on November 23, 2004

9. ‘Benazir, Zardari’s reunion in Dubai on 20th’
   Pakistan Times Monitoring Report 2004/12/08

ISLAMABAD: … Asif is reported to have been telling his close friends and political aides that year 2005 will be the election year. PPPP sources claim that the party leadership has even begun the exercise of scrutiny of candidates who will be awarded party tickets for next elections.

“No deal has been cut so far, we are still negotiating and Ms Bhutto wants to buy snap polls for next year”, said the PPP source adding that release of Asif is part of CBMs that have been promised by President Musharraf’s team. Sources said that under the broad understanding Asif Zaradri’s name has been deleted from Exit Control List to facilitate his travel to Dubai. … PPP circles claim that the much trumpeted grand national reconciliation process will culminate into fresh elections later next year. … “But all depends how the negotiations between Ms Bhutto and Musharraf’s aides progress in coming weeks”, said one source. …

Sources close to negotiators claim that Ms Bhutto may like to consider government’s proposal of the seat of UNSG (as was reported by this paper) while Asif Ali Zardari will lead the party into first LB polls and later into general elections. Sources say Ms Bhutto and Asif Zardari are no more in favour of confrontation and for reconciliation. …  “In heart of her hearts, she has reconciled with the fact that Musharraf needs to be at the helm of the affairs for some more time”, said the source.

President’s political aides will be holding another round of talks with Ms Bhutto and Asif Ali Zardari in mid January next to finalise an agreement, should the two sides agree to abide by a set rules of the game. [http://pakistantimes.net/2004/12/08/top10.htm]

10. The Return of Zardari
    By Zahid Hussain: NEWSLINE December 2004

The release of the country’s most high profile prisoner, Asif Ali Zardari, could hardly be described as a triumph of justice. It was purely the politics of expediency that brought freedom to the husband of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto after eight years of incarceration and no convictions. Currently floundering in troubled waters, President Musharraf is swimming every way he can, seeking reconciliation with the liberal secular parties whom he had unsuccessfully tried to wipe out. … Most political observers agree that Zardari’s release could be part of the government’s attempt to woo Bhutto’s Pakistan’s People’s Party … After spending eight years in jail, Zardari has emerged as a political leader in his own right. … The military establishment started negotiations with the PPP immediately after the October 2002 parliamentary elections as the official PML-Q and its allies failed to get a clear majority. … Interestingly, the ISI was negotiating with Zardari throughout this period. The establishment offered to make the imprisoned PPP leader deputy prime minister if Benazir agreed to stay away. With no hope of their offer being accepted, the establishment engineered a split in the party.  Several of the PPP MNAs involved in corruption cases found it convenient to join the pro-Musharrraf forces. The renegades, who call themselves the PPP (Patriots), have been the key pillar of a fragile coalition, but the alliance failed to provide any stability to the new dispensation. …  Senior ISI officials and a close associate of President Musharraf have been in contact with Zardari and some other PPP leaders, but the talks have yet to culminate in a deal. The release of Zardari’s release, however, could be described as a confidence-building measure. A major hitch in any agreement is the issue of Bhutto’s return home and her subsequent participation in the country’s politics. “She will not accept any deal which bars her from politics,” says a senior PPP leader. But, there is certainly a change in Bhutto’s tenor. She sounds much more conciliatory. “We don’t reject any dialogue with the government,” she said in a recent television interview. Zardari was more specific when he declared: “The generals have no choice. Either they work with us and the people of Pakistan or their institution is in danger.” It is, however, very clear that Bhutto, who got a significant political boost after her husband’s release, is not prepared to cut any deal on Musharraf’s terms. … Bhutto’s supporters are confident that Musharraf will be compelled to call early election. “The deal, when it is clinched, will surely enable Bhutto to return to Pakistan and lead the Pakistan People’s Party again,” says a political observer. Whether Musharraf and his generals will agree to Bhutto’s terms is today’s crucial political question. Most political observers believe it will not happen, at least in the near future. … The PPP, meanwhile, is back in the political limelight once again. “We can wait. Time is with us,” declares a confident Zardari.

[http://www.newsline.com.pk/NewsDec2004/cover1dec2004.htm]

11. The return of Asif
    M. Ziauddin: Dawn, April 29, 2005

If one went by what he [Asif Zardari] is saying, he seems to have been sent home by Benazir Bhutto to test the domestic limits of President Musharraf’s ‘enlightened moderation’. …If one read correctly the political moves of President Musharraf, it appears as if he is trying to acquire, before or soon after the next general elections, a position for himself similar, if not identical, to that of the French president, of course without the uniform. In other words, he seems to want to get elected to the office of the president directly by the people without having to be beholden to any of the political parties. He would perhaps welcome competition in this election from a candidate put up by the MMA, but would like very much to have on his side all liberal political parties, including the PML(Q), PML(N) and the PPP.

The trade-off, which president Musharraf is offering to Benazir is: first join the other ‘secular’ political parties to get him elected to the office of the president by direct vote and then you would be allowed to come back home and participate in electoral politics, even contest for the office of the prime minister. Benazir has so far not taken the bait. She wants the general to first remove the hurdles in the way of her return and repeal the laws that bar her from becoming the prime minister for the third time. Then alone would she offer her vote bank to Gen Musharraf to become an all-powerful directly elected president without the uniform. It appears to be a chicken-and-egg proposition and only time will tell who blinks first.

12. ‘Ill-gotten money used to buy Surrey Palace’

The News: October 07, 2006

LONDON: The High Court of Justice, Queens Bench, here on Friday held that money used by Asif Ali Zardari to purchase the Rockwood Estate and Surrey Palace was corruption money.

The government of Pakistan has established its case that the money used for purchase of the Rockwood Estate and Surrey Palace was corruption money earned through kickbacks and commission received from Swiss Pre-shipment Inspection Companies, the court observed.

“Mr Zardari had concealed his ownership of Rockwood Surrey Palace and now it is time for him to show that the Surrey Palace was not purchased with corruption money,” Justice Lawrence Collins of the London High Court said in his 49 pages judgment.

He added that there was a reasonable prospect for the government of Pakistan to establish that the Rockwood Surrey Palace was purchased by Asif Zardari and Benazir Bhutto with corruption money.

A full trial will commence shortly. The judgment is a victory of the National Accountability Bureau’s (NAB) nine years long stance. The NAB has always claimed that the Surrey Palace was secretly purchased by Asif Zardari and Benazir Bhutto with the proceeds of corruption and their ownership was concealed in a secretive network of trusts and offshore companies.

The government had filed its main case, a “tracing claim” in the High Court of London in March this year. Zardari applied to the English High Court to set aside the Pakistan government’s claim.

The court on Friday dismissed Zardari’s application, thus paving the way for the proceedings to continue under the rapid procedures of the commercial court, which is part of the English High Court. The court also ordered Zardari to pay Pakistan government’s cost ie lawyers fee (35,000 pounds).

“I accept Pakistan’s case that it has a real prospect on merits. Mr Zardari sought to conceal his interest in the Rockwood Estate… Mr Zardari has not answered Pakistan’s case that he did not disclose his ownership of the Rockwood Estate or the defendant companies in his 1995 and 1996 tax returns in Pakistan, or in his assets declarations filed in February 1997 as part of his nomination papers for election to the Senate,” Justice Collins writes in the judgment.

There is direct evidence that the Cotecna/SGS payments were used to source the cost of refurbishment monies for the Surrey Palace paid from a Swiss bank accounts of a company called Bomer and that “there is evidence that Mr Zardari was the beneficial owner and controller of Bomer”, he said, adding: “No explanation has been given by Mr Zardari of the source of the payments into the Bomer accounts… Bomer had no commercial business of its own, and it was a vehicle for Mr Zardari and/or Ms Bhutto. There is material evidence that they were behind a number of other off-shore companies used to receive bribes (while concealing their interests).”

Justice Collins said: “I accept that it is inherently improbable that Mr Zardari would have wished Bomer, which was used to receive funds from SGS and Cotecna, to receive funds deriving from legitimate sources. All the monies in the various Swiss bank accounts seem to have been treated as being effectively part of the same fund.” The judgment continues, saying; “There is, in my judgement, a reasonable prospect of Pakistan establishing that (a) Mr Zardari and/or Ms Bhutto instructed Mr Schlegelmilch and Mr Howard to facilitate the purchase and refurbishment of the Rockwood Estate.”

Accordingly, the English High Court proceedings will commence shortly, and Asif Zardari is finally to explain, as to how he purchased and refurbished the Surrey Palace, after so many years of denials, which he has now admitted being its owner.

This judgment is a step closer to tighten the noose around the accused, as recently Interpol has re-issued Red Notices against Benazir and Zardari after rejecting their appeal against the issuance of these notices.

13. ‘Zardari used corruption money to buy Surrey Palace’

Dawn: October 07, 2006

LONDON, Oct 6: The High Court of Justice, Queens Bench, on Friday held that money used by Asif Ali Zardari to purchase the Rockwood Estate and Surrey Palace had been attained by corruption. The government of Pakistan had established its case that the money used for purchase of the Rockwood Estate and Surrey Palace was corruption money earned through kickbacks and commission received from Swiss pre-shipment inspection companies, the court observed. Justice Lawrence Collins, considered an authority in such complex trans-national cases, said in its 49-pages judgment that Mr. Zardari had concealed his ownership of Surrey Palace and now it was time for him to show that it was not purchased with corruption money.” A full trial will commence shortly.—APP

14. Surrey Palace sold, NA told
    Oct 10th, 2007

ISLAMABAD: The National Assembly was informed on Tuesday that the Surrey Palace had been sold to a billionaire from Qatar last month at a price six times higher than the original one. MP Bhandara, a minority MNA of the ruling PML, made this disclosure on a point of order, and surprisingly no member from the Pakistan People’s Party Parliamentarians rose to reject his statement. … Bhandara said now there is no need for the PPP to worry as the National Reconciliation Ordinance had already been promulgated. … 

[http://www.paklinks.com/gs/archive/index.php/t-266500.html
http://thenews.jang.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=10573]

15. Foreign cases that could haunt Bhutto

By Richard Lawson: BBC News, London, Published: 2007/10/29
Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto is preparing for general elections … could still face several cases outside of Pakistan. One of the most advanced is in Switzerland, where in 2003 Geneva magistrate Daniel Devaud convicted Ms Bhutto of money-laundering. In his judgment, he found she and her close associates received around $15m in kickbacks from Pakistani government contracts with SGS and Cotecna, two Swiss companies. Mr Devaud sentenced Ms Bhutto and her husband Asif Zardari to 180 days in prison, ordering them to return $11.9m to the government of Pakistan. “I certainly don’t have any doubts about the judgments I handed down [which] came after an investigation lasting several years, involving thousands of documents,” he has told the BBC. Ms Bhutto contested the decision, which was made in her absence, and the case is being reheard, with the former prime minister now facing the more serious charge of aggravated money-laundering. … A second international case involving Ms Bhutto is under way in England. In this case, the government of Pakistan alleged that Ms Bhutto and her husband bought Rockwood, a $3.4m country estate in Surrey, using money from kickbacks. … Then, in 2006, an English judge, Lord Justice Collins, came to an interesting, though by no means final, conclusion about the estate. Whilst stressing he was not making any “findings of fact”, Justice Collins said there was a “reasonable prospect” of the government of Pakistan establishing, in possible future court proceedings, that Ms Bhutto and/or her husband bought and refurbished Rockwood with “the fruits of corruption”. …

Ms Bhutto also faces allegations concerning the United Nations oil-for-food scandal. In 2005, the Independent Inquiry Commission led by former US Federal Reserve head Paul Volcker found that more than 2,000 companies breached UN sanctions by making illegal payments to Saddam Hussein’s government in Iraq before 2003. Among them was a company called Petroline FZC, based in the United Arab Emirates. Mr Volcker’s inquiry found it traded $144m of Iraqi oil, and made $2m of illegal payments to Saddam Hussein’s regime. Documents from Pakistan’s National Accountability Bureau appear to show that Ms Bhutto was Petroline FZC’s chairwoman. …

The Spanish authorities are investigating financial transactions thought to be linked to Petroline FZC. In addition, President Musharraf’s amnesty dropping corruption charges against public officials only covers the period 1986-1999. The Petroline FZC transactions came after that, which means that in theory a charge is possible. … [http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/7064052.stm]

16. Trail of corruption and kickback charges

David Pallister: The Guardian: Monday November 12, 2007

Hopes for a third term for Benazir Bhutto, twice kicked out of government for corruption and incompetence, have been thrown into turmoil by the emergency rule. But her ambitions ultimately still depend on whether the amnesty on her corruption charges, granted to her last month by the national reconciliation ordinance, will be upheld in the new supreme court.

Bhutto and her husband, Asif Ali Zardari – nicknamed Mr 10% over alleged extortion – faced eight counts of taking tens of millions of dollars in illegal kickbacks. But whatever decision the court arrives at, the couple also have to contend with money laundering proceedings in Switzerland and Spain, and a civil case in London involving an expensive Surrey mansion.

As the president’s ordinance only deals with offences up to 1999, investigations in Pakistan could continue into allegations that the pair paid about $2m in illegal kickbacks to Saddam Hussein under the oil-for-food programme.

The controversy surrounding Bhutto’s financial affairs has been compounded by reports showing she and her family have worldwide assets worth about 90bn Pakistan rupees ($1.5bn). Despite voluminous evidence, some from the British government, the Bhuttos deny all the charges.

The charges

Among the charges in Pakistan are allegations that the Bhuttos skimmed $2m in commissions from a 1990s deal to buy thousands of duty-free Ursus tractors from Poland. The money went into a Swiss bank account. Christine Junod, a Geneva magistrate, says documentary evidence “establishes beyond doubt that these commissions, under the cover of alleged consultancy fees, were meant to remunerate the illicit advantages obtained by Ursus from the Pakistani administration, thanks to the interventions of Asif Zardari”.

A second case involves a Dubai-based Pakistani gold bullion dealer who allegedly paid $10m to a Bhutto company in the British Virgin Islands for the exclusive right to import gold, again losing the country millions of dollar in duties. Zardari, who has served six years on corruption charges, is also accused of evading duties on the import of a £55,000 armoured BMW.

A fourth case, involving Swiss banks, is moving towards a trial in Geneva. In this the couple are accused of taking kickbacks for the award of contracts to two Swiss firms employed to stop customs fraud. In 2003 a Swiss magistrate found the couple guilty, sentenced them to six months in prison and ordered them to pay $12m back to the Pakistan government.

The paper trail connecting Benazir Bhutto to the case started with a moment of extravagance. Five years before, she had bought a £117,000 diamond necklace in London; part of that was paid for by one of the Swiss firms identified in the investigation. Lawyers for the Bhuttos challenged the judgment, a move that required the case be reopened. Last month the Swiss authorities said they would go ahead.

Oil-for-food scandal

The authoritative Volker report into the oil-for-food scandal identified the company Petroline FZC as having received oil contracts worth £145m in return for paying illicit surcharges to Iraq of $2m. Pakistan’s national accountability bureau has produced documents which show that Bhutto was the company chairwoman. Some of the profits went to firms in Spain, where another criminal investigation into money laundering is still active.

Rockwood House

The Surrey mansion, Rockwood House, was bought in 1995, apparently owned through a chain of firms and trusts, involving addresses in the Isle of Man, Jersey and Liechtenstein. Zardari denied, for eight years, that he was the owner despite instructing a builder with plans for a helipad, nine-hole golf course and polo pony paddock. Crates of valuable artefacts were shipped from Karachi. In 2004, when creditors forced the property into a liquidation sale, the Pakistani government claimed the proceeds. Lawyers for Zardari then appeared, claiming he was the beneficial owner.

The money from the sale is still in the liquidators’ bank account, though a high court judge said the Pakistani government had a reasonable case, stating the money came via corruption. The case continues through the courts with Zardari repeatedly claiming to be too ill to mount a rebuttal.
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/nov/12/pakistan.benazirbhutto]

17. Graft cases dog Bhutto’s widower

Los Angeles Times: January 04, 2008

During the stormy years Benazir Bhutto ruled Pakistan, her husband was a top power broker and a prime target of corruption allegations that toppled her.

The assassination of the former prime minister has pushed her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, back into the heart of the storm. Their political party this week named Zardari to run its day-to-day affairs while appointing the couple’s 19-year-old son to the ceremonial role of chairman.

Even though Zardari has said he will not run for parliament in upcoming elections, attention has focused once again on the corruption cases that have swirled around him at home and abroad and made him a polarizing figure even within the Pakistan People’s Party.

The political strife of the moment makes it especially difficult to assess the allegations against Zardari in Pakistan. But several cases in Europe offer insight into the longtime suspicions that have haunted him and, to some extent, his late wife. The cases raise questions about the sources of the family’s vast wealth and the elaborate, secretive way in which the couple allegedly moved money around the world.

The accusations center on the dapper Zardari, 51, a former polo player whose critics nicknamed him “Mr. 10%” because of his alleged taste for bribes. After Bhutto’s second government fell in 1996, authorities imprisoned Zardari on charges of graft. Pakistan’s anti-corruption agency pursued investigations overseas, and authorities in several countries opened their own inquiries.

Zardari was released in 2004 and went into exile. His defenders say Pakistani authorities framed him with fabricated evidence and abused him while in custody, an experience that inflicted lasting damage on his health.

Some of Bhutto’s supporters have said the investigations were politically driven attempts to destroy her. In October, President Pervez Musharraf approved an amnesty for Bhutto, allowing her to return home and launch her ill-fated campaign.

The most significant European cases are a Swiss money-laundering inquiry and a British civil case. They remain open, but prospects were uncertain even before the assassination. Lawyers for the couple had won court skirmishes and, in interviews before Bhutto’s death, predicted that the amnesty in Pakistan would cause the accusations to be shelved. Spanish prosecutors recently closed a three-year investigation of Bhutto, citing lack of evidence.

But in 2003, a Swiss investigative magistrate decided he had the goods on Zardari and Bhutto after pursuing a money trail from offshore companies in the Caribbean to banks in Geneva to a jewelry shop here.

Judge Daniel Devaud took advantage of a Swiss law allowing investigative magistrates to issue a summary verdict if they think the evidence is strong, and convicted Zardari and Bhutto of money laundering. The judge ruled that Swiss firms had bribed the couple in return for a Pakistani government contract. He froze about $12 million in suspected kickbacks.

But a Swiss appeals court promptly set aside the verdict. A new magistrate reopened the investigation on charges of aggravated money laundering, a more serious offense based on the suspicion of systematic criminal activity.

Zardari’s Swiss lawyer declined to comment on the specifics of the case. But he said his client, who served as a legislator and environment minister for Bhutto, had done nothing wrong.

“Mr. Zardari denies having committed any crime whatsoever,” the lawyer, Saverio Lembo, said in an interview before Bhutto’s assassination.

In his 2003 verdict, the Swiss judge connected Zardari to a chain of corruption that began with two Swiss companies, Cotecna and SGS. Starting in 1994, company executives courted Zardari in hopes of landing a contract to provide container inspection equipment and expertise to the Pakistani customs agency, according to Swiss court records.

A Swiss advisor of the Bhutto family, lawyer Jens Schlegelmilch, acted as an intermediary for executives who, according to internal SGS memos, saw Zardari as Pakistan’s unofficial “deputy prime minister.”

After talks with Zardari, the two companies won the contract in 1995 “upon the decision of Benazir Bhutto” and “despite the opposition of the customs service,” the judge found.

As part of a secret deal, the judge found, the Swiss contractors funneled $11.9 million in bribes into three offshore firms in the British Virgin Islands and ultimately into bank accounts in Geneva. The nominal owners of two companies were Bhutto’s mother and brother-in-law, according to the records.

The judge found that Zardari owned the third company, Bomer Finance, which received about $8 million, and that “Bhutto shares with her husband the assets” and “has power of disposition” over the company, according to the documents.

Bhutto denied in testimony that she had anything to do with Bomer, according to her lawyer in Geneva, Alec Reymond.

Nonetheless, Judge Devaud portrayed the former prime minister as a knowing participant. He wrote in his verdict: “Bhutto thus knew that she was acting in a criminally reprehensible manner by abusing her role in order to obtain for herself or her husband considerable sums … at the cost of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.”

In addition to rejecting the allegation of Bhutto’s involvement, Reymond said the judge erred in depicting payments as bribes.

“The money is there; commissions were paid,” Reymond said. “I do not think Mr. Zardari disputes that. But they were like the commissions that are paid to hundreds of businessmen. There was nothing irregular or illegal about them.”

The judge gave Zardari, Bhutto and Schlegelmilch suspended six-month sentences, but the appellate court set them aside. In the new inquiry, another investigate magistrate submitted his conclusions in October to the prosecutor general of Geneva, who must decide whether to pursue a trial.

Bhutto testified in the new investigation, but Zardari has not, according to lawyers and court documents.

In Britain, the decade-old civil proceedings focus on Zardari. In a lawsuit, the Pakistani government accused him of using illicit funds to acquire the 365-acre Rockwood estate, a $6.5-million property featuring a Tudor-style mansion and two adjoining farms in the Surrey district. The estate was bought and refurbished in 1995 through trusts in the Isle of Man and Liechtenstein and the Caribbean firms linked to Bhutto, Zardari and the alleged kickbacks, according to the lawsuit.

Zardari steadfastly denied ownership until January 2006, when he acknowledged he owned the property, according to British court records.

A month later, a court on the Isle of Man concluded that it did not find evidence that proceeds of corruption were used to buy and refurbish the estate, according to the records.

British lawyers representing the Pakistani government then filed a lawsuit in the High Court in London seeking the proceeds of the sale of the estate. Zardari challenged the jurisdiction of the court, which rejected his motion in October 2006.

In his ruling, Judge Lawrence Collins emphasized that he was not making legal findings about the facts, but instead issuing a preliminary assessment of the case. He said that “there was no direct evidence” the estate was bought with illicit funds, according to the records.

On the other hand, the judge did rule that Pakistan has a “reasonable prospect” of proving that funds used to refurbish the estate were “the fruits of corruption,” according to the documents.

The allegations of corruption have yet to be proved in court. A civil trial had been expected to take place in London sometime this year. But the assassination has left that possibility, like so much about the future of Pakistan and the Bhutto clan, in limbo. [http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jan/04/world/fg-zardari4]

A Note: Elections are held on February 18, 2008

18. Musharraf pushes Swiss to prosecute Zardari

The Guardian: Thursday February 21, 2008

The battle for power in Pakistan took a fresh twist yesterday when the government reinvigorated a Swiss corruption case against the opposition leader Asif Zardari on the eve of post-election power sharing talks that threaten President Pervez Musharraf.

Government lawyers urged a court in Geneva to prosecute Zardari – whose Pakistan People’s party won the most seats in Monday’s election – on 10-year-old charges of stashing $55m in kickbacks in a Swiss bank account.

The move was seen as a pressure tactic against Zardari, the husband of the assassinated Benazir Bhutto, as he prepared to start negotiations later today for a coalition government with the second-placed opposition leader, Nawaz Sharif, who has campaigned to oust Musharraf.

Despite a massive anti-Musharraf factor in Pakistan’s general election, the retired army chief rejected calls for his resignation from the presidency, indicating that he would serve out his five-year term of office. His staunch ally, the US, urged the opposition to work with him.

The Swiss case against Zardari stalled last year after Musharraf struck a “reconciliation” deal with Bhutto under which all corruption charges would be dropped. But since her assassination on December 27, and this week’s election victory, all bets appear to be off.

“There has been no ruling in 10 years. Why? The answer is simple – because this is all political,” Zardari’s lawyer, Saverio Lembo, said.

Musharraf’s political survival could depend on preventing a united opposition front that, with enough votes in the new parliament, could impeach him. To do so he may try to exploit differences between Sharif and Zardari.

Sharif wants Musharraf to go and for senior judges who were sacked by the military leader last November to be reinstated. But Zardari’s PPP has taken a softer line, keeping open the possibility of working with Musharraf and remaining ambiguous about the position of the former chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, who is currently under house arrest. Addressing the media outside his Islamabad home last night, Zardari said both issues would be solved by the next parliament. “Parliament will decide which president it can work with and which president it cannot,” he said.

The negotiations starting today will be complex and possibly slow. Under the constitution there is no time limit for forming a government.

Yesterday the American ambassador, Anne Patterson, held a long meeting with Zardari. Afterwards he denied that she had tried to pressure him to work with Musharraf. “I don’t think the diplomatic corps works on political lines. They do not give political positions,” he said.

President George Bush, on a trip to Ghana, deemed the elections “fair” and said he hoped the new government would work with the US. “We need Pakistan as an important ally,” he said. “We’ve got interests in helping make sure there’s no safe haven from which people can plot and plan attacks against the United States of America and Pakistan.”

But EU observers said they found evidence of significant manipulation in favour of Musharraf’s party, particularly in the run-up to polling. “A level playing field was not provided for the campaign, with authorities primarily favouring the former ruling parties,” Michael Gahler, head of the observer mission, told reporters.

The irregularities persisted last night, with the election commission failing to declare the results in a handful of constituencies – seats that could be vital in any future vote against Musharraf.

Samina Ahmed, south Asia director of the International Crisis Group, said there was evidence that pro-government rigging had deprived both opposition parties of an outright majority, but they should stick together if Pakistan were to achieve a transition from military rule. “Both parties have been deprived of a majority. That makes them vulnerable to manipulation. They need to realise that if they do not join hands, they cannot stabilise the transition. They have got to work together.” [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/21/pakistan]

19. Govt presses Swiss court case against Zardari
    Daily Times 21-02-2008

GENEVA: Lawyers representing Pakistan urged a Swiss court on Wednesday to prosecute Pakistan People’s Party Co-chairman Asif Zardari, accused of stashing 60 million Swiss francs ($55 million) in the Alpine country. At a hearing, Swiss lawyers for Pakistan argued that money-laundering charges against Zardari should proceed in Geneva in spite of an amnesty, the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO), signed by President Pervez Musharraf last year. They said the Pakistani Supreme Court’s (SC) decision on the NRO was expected in “a few weeks”.

“This dossier is a bomb for Zardari,” Pakistan’s Swiss lawyer Dominique Henchoz told the Geneva court. “His name appears on each page as the beneficial owner of offshore companies. Some 60 million Swiss francs have been frozen (in Geneva accounts),” she said. The three-judge court in Geneva, presided over by judge Valerie Laemmel-Julliard, announced at the end of the 90-minute hearing that it would rule soon on whether to send the case to the prosecutor for trial, or back to a magistrate for more work.

Jacques Python, the senior lawyer for Pakistan, which is a civil party in the case, said: “It is urgent to act. The statute of limitations on some of the charges expires in July 2009.” Saverio Lembo, Zardari’s lawyer in Geneva, called for the case to be suspended pending the SC ruling. “The case (in Pakistan) is going nowhere. There has been no ruling in 10 years. Why? The answer is simple – because this is all political,” Lembo told the court. Chief prosecutor Daniel Zappelli agreed Geneva authorities should await the ruling. afp

20. Musharraf hopes new govt adopts conciliatory attitude
    By Khalid Hasan Daily Times 21-02-2008

WASHINGTON: President Pervez Musharraf has said that he would work with the new government that political parties are trying to form in the wake of Monday’s elections, hoping that it would follow a conciliatory course. He told the Wall Street Journal in an interview published on Wednesday that, “The confrontational politics of the 1990s should be left behind. We have to go for conciliatory politics and harmonious interaction within the government, between various parties and between the prime minister and the government.” In the wide-ranging interview, the president said he has no plans to step down. Instead, he said he wanted to help end the internecine battles between presidents and premiers that have marred the country’s political history. Musharraf said there could only be a clash if the prime minister and the president were trying to get rid of each other. He said the prime minister would run the government, while the president has his own position but does not run the government.  

21. London court terminates Surrey Palace case against Zardari
    Daily Times Monitor: 21-3-2008

LAHORE: A London court has terminated the Surrey Palace case against PPP Co-Chairman Asif Zardari, Dawn News reported on Thursday. It said a special NAB prosecutor appeared before the court and said corruption cases against Zardari were being withdrawn under the NRO. The government had filed a claim on the property in a court in the Isle of Man, which according to Zardari’s lawyer Farooq Naik, ruled against the Pakistan government. However, talking to ARY TV channel, Naik said the court had already ruled in favour of Zardari due to lack of evidence. The Pakistani government had filed an appeal against the ruling, he said. Naik said there were no cases against Zardari abroad. Cases against Zardari were filed when he was in jail and all of them were fabricated, he said

22. Surrey Palace case terminated

Dawn 21-03-2008

ISLAMABAD, March 20: A London court on Thursday terminated the Rockwood-Surrey Palace case against PPP co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari, after a NAB Special Prosecutor appeared before the court, Dawn News television reported. The NAB prosecutor told the court that corruption cases against Asif Ali Zardari were being withdrawn under the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO), the report said.—APP

A Note: On Tuesday August 19, 2008 Musharraf quits and on Tuesday March 25, 2008 Gilani is sworn in.

23. £1m squandered over Surrey Palace case
24. Ziauddin: Dawn, March 23, 2008

LONDON, March 22: The government of Pakistan is estimated to have squandered about a million pounds, pursuing the Surrey Palace case for almost seven years. The price of the Rockwood estate, bought in 1995 by Mr Zardari presumably for £4.35 million, is now said to be worth over $7 million.

Under the settlement arrived at between Mr Zardari and the government as part of the bargain envisaged in the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO), the latter has conceded that it will cooperate with the former to enable him to obtain any of the asset (now no more under litigation) without any claim on its part.

The Pakistan government gave up all its claims on the so-called Surrey Palace sales proceeds on Thursday and instructed its lawyers in the UK to withdraw the case it had instituted against Asif Zardari in the Queens Court for recovery of the said proceeds.

Mr Baseer Qureshi of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and advocate Mr Shehzad, who arrived here early last week, issued the instructions on behalf of the government following which an agreement to the effect was signed between the lawyers of Mr Zardari and those representing the government of Pakistan.

Attorneys of the two parties, Saunders LLP on behalf of Mr Zardari and Edwards, Angell, Palmer and Dodge on behalf of government of Pakistan signed and submitted the agreement to the court on Thursday.

The court is likely to decide the matter on Tuesday, March 26.

After having consistently refused for almost nine years to accept that he had bought the Rockwood estate, Mr Zardari admitted in 2004 to owning the so-called Surrey Palace when Pakistan authorities staked its claim on it in the British courts alleging that it was bought with questionable funds.

The Rockwood Estate includes a 20-room mansion and two farms on 365 acres of land.

Towards the end of 2003, a liquidator for the three Manx companies (Romina Properties, Winkford Farm and Parsonage Farm) reached a compromise with various claimants for disposing of the proceeds of the Rockwood sale. After paying creditors, the remaining money would now go to Mr Zardari.

24. Zardari on the Hot Seat
    Mark Hosenball and Michael Isikoff:
    Newsweek Web Exclusive Aug 20, 2008

Asif Ali Zardari, the Pakistani politician considered a front runner to become the country’s next president, remains under criminal investigation in Switzerland over allegations that he received kickbacks from two Swiss-based companies while his wife, the late Benazir Bhutto, served as the country’s prime minister in the 1990s, a Swiss judge and two Swiss lawyers close to the case told NEWSWEEK.

But Zardari, who has always claimed that corruption allegations against him were politically motivated, may be using his growing political clout in Islamabad to pressure Swiss authorities to curtail, or even close, their long-running investigation into his affairs, say Swiss legal sources, who requested anonymity discussing sensitive matters.

Zadari, through a spokeswoman, maintains that the probe is already closed. “Mr. Zardari feels that you have been misinformed and that the case that you are referring to is closed,” wrote Farah Ispahani, in response to an e-mail from NEWSWEEK. “Please be careful about reporting something that may have been planted.”

Zardari, who co-chairs Bhutto’s political movement and was one of her closest advisers when she headed Pakistan’s government, has emerged as perhaps the most powerful figure in Pakistani politics following the resignation this week of President Pervez Musharraf. U.S. officials say they already view Zardari as one of most important Pakistani officials the U.S. deals with on sensitive issues such as the hunt for Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders in volatile tribal areas along the country’s border with Afghanistan.

But U.S. officials remain wary of Zardari because of corruption allegations that have swirled around him for years. In the 1990s, when Bhutto served two terms as prime minister and her spouse served a stint as investment minister, Zardari earned the nickname of “Mr. Ten Percent” because of allegations that he had received kickbacks on state contracts. He spent more than eight years in jail in Pakistan during corruption investigations, though he was never convicted of any crime.

Zardari, Bhutto and their supporters have always maintained that the corruption allegations against the couple were trumped up by powerful political enemies, including both Musharraf and Nawaz Sharif, a former prime minister who is now Zardari’s principal rival for power. Lawyers for Bhutto and Zardari say they always maintained their innocence of any corruption or other criminal accusations. “For most Pakistanis this is a matter that is now closed,” said a senior Pakistani government official who spoke on condition of anonymity. “The primary motivation [behind the investigations] was political.”

The Swiss investigations were opened years ago, during Sharif’s tenure as prime minister. His government requested official legal assistance from Switzerland, where Pakistani authorities suspected that the couple had stashed proceeds from alleged corrupt activities. The Pakistani government hired its own lawyers in Switzerland to gather evidence against Bhutto and Zardari and help Swiss investigators with their inquiries.

In 2003, these investigations resulted in a series of court orders against Bhutto, Zardari and one of their Swiss lawyers, Jens Schlegelmilch. The orders, akin to misdemeanor guilty findings by a U.S. justice of the peace, were issued by Judge Daniel Devaud, an investigating magistrate in Geneva who has handled many high-profile investigations into the alleged laundering of corrupt payments through Switzerland by foreign politicians.

Devaud’s orders found Bhutto, Zardari and Schlegelmilch, a Swiss lawyer who had represented them for many years, guilty of minor money-laundering offenses under Switzerland’s penal code. Devaud’s orders alleged that, via obscure companies in the British Virgin Islands, Bhutto, Zardari and members of their family had received improper payments from two Swiss companies that were seeking contracts with the Pakistani government. (Pakistan wanted to hire the companies, Cotecna and SGS, to inspect cargo shipments before they arrived to ensure that appropriate import duties had been assessed).

In his rulings, Judge Devaud quoted an internal SGS document in which an official of the company—who had visited Pakistan after Bhutto returned to power in 1993—characterized Zardari’s standing: “In his view, Asif Zardary [sic], BB’s husband, is deputy PM officially with a lot of pwr [sic] … The influence of Asif Zardary is real and he has in the past always helped and favoured his friends and cronies …” In 1997, after Zardari had been imprisoned in on suspicion of corruption, Devaud alleged that Bhutto herself had purchased a necklace worth 117,000 British pounds from a London jeweler—using cash and a bank transfer from the account of Bomer Finance, a British Virgin Islands company, which the magistrate said was jointly controlled by Bhutto and Zardari. (Her supporters claimed this allegation was based on trumped-up evidence supplied by her political enemies. Bhutto herself reportedly claimed her husband had bought the necklace but never told her about it).

Devaud ordered suspended prison terms for the defendants and directed them to pay restitution and compensation to the Pakistani government. Under Swiss legal procedure, Bhutto, Zardari and their lawyer were allowed to appeal the judge’s convictions to a Geneva police tribunal. They did appeal, resulting in the dismissal of Judge Devaud’s guilty findings against them. The case was then referred for further investigation to the office of Geneva’s local prosecutor, Daniel Zappelli, who decided to continue the investigation, only this time with a view toward possible charges of “aggravated” money laundering under Swiss law.

Neither the prosecutor nor a spokesman for his office could be reached for comment. But Judge Devaud confirmed to NEWSWEEK that the prosecutor’s office was still investigating “aggravated” money-laundering offenses. Likewise, Jacques Python, a Geneva lawyer hired by Pakistan to work with Swiss authorities on the corruption case, said he had every reason to believe that the Geneva prosecutor’s investigation was still open. And Alec Reymond, a lawyer who had represented Bhutto in connection with the Swiss investigation, also says the case is still open.

Devaud said that a Pakistani government anti-corruption agency had posted on its Web site what he described as competent English-language translations of the original orders he had issued against Bhutto, Zardari and Schlegelmilch in 2003. Around the time Bhutto and Zardari returned to Pakistan from exile last year, however, the documents outlining the charges against them disappeared from the government Web site, Devaud said. But the document outlining the case against Schlegelmilch, the couple’s Swiss lawyer, includes key elements of Devaud’s findings against Bhutto and Zardari, and can still be read here.

Python disclosed that several weeks ago, after Zardari and his political archrival Sharif assumed control in Islamabad earlier this summer, the Pakistani government fired Python as its Geneva lawyer, effectively withdrawing its complaint.

Zardari’s allies believe the Pakistani government’s withdrawal from the Swiss investigation will soon lead to the termination of the probe. Pakistani officials say the amnesty order in effect undermined any continuing Swiss investigation by declaring there was no corruption on the part of Zardari and Bhutto, and therefore no corrupt payments could have been laundered in Switzerland or anywhere else.

Earlier this year, Zappelli, the prosecutor now in charge of the case, was quoted in the French-language press saying: “The future of the case depends on Pakistan, who initiated this investigation … if it withdraws its complaint, there will no longer be a victim.”

However, two other Swiss legal sources close to the case, who asked for anonymity when discussing sensitive information, said they believe the Geneva prosecutor could continue to pursue the case, given that the investigation did turn up evidence, which was not exclusively supplied by Pakistan, of violation of Swiss money-laundering laws. Ultimately, said one of the sources, Swiss prosecutors have three possible courses of action: close the case entirely, prosecute it by bringing it into a superior court or arrange the Swiss version of a plea bargain, in which money seized by Swiss authorities during the investigation probably would be confiscated or handed over to charity, but charges would be settled without any prison sentences. [http://www.newsweek.com/id/154383]

25. Asif’s $60m released by Swiss govt

By Masood Haider: Dawn, 29-8-2008

NEW YORK, Aug 28: The Swiss government has released millions of dollars in assets belonging to Pakistan People’s Party leader Asif Ali Zardari, the New York Times reported on Thursday quoting the Swiss authorities. Mr Zardari’s accounts were frozen in 1997 at the request of the Nawaz Sharif government which was investigating allegations that Mr Zardari had received kickbacks when his wife headed the government. The assets were released after the attorney general notified the Swiss government that he was no longer investigating Mr Zardari. The attorney general wrote that neither Mr Zardari nor Ms Benazir Bhutto had done anything illegal and that the charges were politically motivated, the Swiss Prosecutor General, Mr Daniel Zappelli, told the NYT in an interview. As a result, the Swiss dropped a money-laundering case against Mr Zardari.

“For money laundering to be proven, you have to show it was the product of a crime, but we don’t have any evidence for a crime committed in Pakistan,” Mr Zappelli said. The value of the assets is about $60 million, said a Swiss official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the figure had not been disclosed publicly. The Swiss action came as a shock to Daniel Devaud, the judge in Geneva who originally investigated the charges. He said it should not be interpreted as a sign of Mr Zardari’s innocence, the newspaper said. “It would be very difficult to say that there is nothing in the files that shows there was possibly corruption going on after what I have seen in there,” Mr Devaud said in a telephone interview. “After I heard what the general prosecutor said, I have the feeling we are talking about two different cases.” Mr Zardari and Ms Bhutto were suspected of using Swiss bank accounts to launder millions of dollars, allegedly bribes paid by companies seeking customs inspection contracts in Pakistan in the 1990s. Ms Bhutto and Mr Zardari always denied the allegations, saying they were politically motivated.

26. Withdrawal of Swiss case doesn’t mean Zardari is innocent’

By Khalid Hasan: Daily Times: 29-08-2008

WASHINGTON: Daniel Devaud, the Geneva judge who originally investigated the money laundering charges against the Pakistan People’s Party Co-chairman Asif Ali Zardar and former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, told New York Times in an interview that the withdrawal of the case had come as a shock to him and “it should not be interpreted as a sign of Mr Zardari’s innocence”.

Zardari has always denied the allegations, saying they were politically motivated. Zardari’s accounts were frozen in 1997 at the request of the Pakistan government, investigating allegations that he had received kickbacks while in government, his wife, Benazir, being the prime minister. In June this year, the attorney general of Pakistan informed the Swiss authorities that Pakistan was no longer pursuing the case, which was politically motivated and Benazir and Zardari had done nothing illegal. “For money laundering to be proven, you have to show it was the product of a crime, but we don’t have any evidence for a crime committed in Pakistan,” Swiss prosecutor general Daniel Zappelli told the New York Times.

According to one Swiss source, the value of the assets released is about $60 million, said a Swiss official. Judge Devaud told the newspaper, “It would be very difficult to say that there is nothing in the files that shows there was possibly corruption going on after what I have seen in there. After I heard what the ge1neral prosecutor said, I have the feeling we are talking about two different cases.”