ISLAMABAD: A letter of the Attorney General’s Chambers of British Virgin Islands (BVI) released by the Supreme Court on Thursday further indicted the Panama Joint Investigation Team (JIT) that it concealed facts and communications that went against its premeditated agenda, writes Tariq Butt.
This letter dated 16th June, 2017, raised several startling questions. Sara Potter-Washington, Crown Counsel for BVI Attorney General, addressed it to the JIT head Wajid Zia. Not only this but all other letters from the BVI were sent by post and email.
While this letter, which flatly refused cooperation on the JIT’s Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) request for being in violation of the BVI laws, was not reflected in the JIT report, Sara Potter-Washington’s another letter dated 4th July, 2017, was included in it. Why? Had the JIT got the latest letter before July 10 when it stood disbanded after completing its assignment, it would presumably have figures in its findings.
One reason for not including the 16th June, 2017, communication in the JIT report could be that it did not help the team in any way as it declined cooperation on the MLA. For having been simultaneously emailed in addition to sending it by post, it is assumed that it was received by the JIT on the same day i.e. 16th June, 2017, it was penned down. The letter carried JIT’s email address: JIT-SC@protonmail.com.
It would certainly be criminal negligence on the part of the JIT if it did not deliberately take into consideration the 16th June, 2017 letter or include it in its report if it received the communication.
However, if it got the July 4, 2017, letter from the same BVI counsel, relied on it and incorporated it in its findings, it is incomprehensible why it did not get the 16th June, 2017, letter which was written eighteen days earlier.
It is beyond doubt that the apex court received the letter just now and made it public. In its order, it said that since the JIT has wrapped up the setup, the letters (of BVI and Qatari sheikh) were forwarded to the court registrar. “We summoned the envelopes and opened them in open court.”
Ostensibly, these letters were received after JIT’s cutoff date of July 10. It is clear from this BVI letter that it was a downloaded email because it doesn’t carry the signature of Sara Potter-Washington and only Sd/ appears on the place allocated for it which is the normal case in email communications. Both the letters of 16th June and July 4 carried the same subject: MLA – Nescoll Limited BC 77606 and Nielsen Enterprises Limited BC 114856.
The July 4 letter also contained a July 3 communication of the BVI’s Financial Investigation Agency (FIA), which said it seeks to confirm: a letter dated 12 June, 2012, (bearing “SAR 1478”) was issued by the FIA, signed by Errol George, Director, raising various queries in relation to both Nescoll and Nielsen to Ms J Nizbeth Maduro, Money Laundering Reporting Officer, Mossack Fonseca & CO. (BVI) Ltd; the FIA received a reply dated 22 June, 2012, from Mossack Fonseca & Co. (BVI) Ltd, responding to queries raised by the FIA in relation to Nielsen and Nescoll.
This leaves no doubt that old correspondence of 2012 between the FIA and Mossack Fonseca, being the same documents released by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalist (ICIJ), was got authenticated from the BVI FIA instead of sending anything new or getting any fresh information. In this letter, the FIA just confirmed its own record and correspondence with Mossack Fonseca.
The July 4 letter was in response to the JIT’s June 23, 2017, communication. This raises more questions. When the JIT wrote this letter to the BVI attorney general, it had in reality already received the June 16 letter that refused any cooperation on its MLA request. This means that when the JIT got a negative response from the attorney general through the June 16 letter, it sent the old correspondence between the FIA and Mossack Fonseca for confirmation from the FIA, making it crystal clear that the JIT was insistent upon entangling the Sharif family in the saga.
The latest letter read: Reference is made to captioned MLA request which seeks assistance in the confirmation, verification and certification of certain documents. It is our considered view that the request as set out is not in conformity with the laws of the BVI for the following reasons: The summary of the facts does not provide any background information that shows the nexus between the companies mentioned and any alleged offence. The request does not show how the named companies may have been involved in the inferred offence of corruption or corrupt practices; the information provided in the request must prima facie show how the offence is committed and further must also provide a copy of the extract of the law relative to the offence committed and not a quote; the request does not clearly indicate whether criminal investigations are ongoing or proceedings have commenced with respect of the company, and beneficial ownership of the named companies Nielson and Nescoll.
Continuing, the letter said that in the circumstances we are unable to render any assistance in the execution of your request. You may upon rectification of the mentioned anomalies; that ii, rectification of the reasons why the request is not complaint with the law of the BVI; submit another request for a further consideration. A perusal of the JIT report shows that the June 16, 2017, letter is not present in its report and all of its nine released volumes.
