Charge No.1: Jahangir Tareen is a dishonest person because he was involved in insider trading in the past.
The verdict: The SECP has already buried the matter through a settlement.
Though the Supreme Court concedes that Tareen may have committed the crime of insider trading, the court also notes that he returned his gains along with fines, penalties and charges to the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) as was demanded from him by the SECP.
Further, the court noted that under the terms of the settlement with the SECP, Tareen could not be deemed to have committed an offense just because he agreed to a settlement.
Further, because the SECP itself had said that the matter "will stand disposed off with no further action" if Tareen agreed to the settlement — which he did — the court could no longer judge Tareen on the matter.
The court also noted that the SECP had never criminally prosecuted Tareen, which meant that this was "a past and closed transaction."
Charge No.2: Jahangir Tareen is dishonest because he mis-declared and underpaid his agricultural income tax in 2010 and 2011.
The verdict: This is already a sub judice matter.
"We are not persuaded to make any declaration against the respondent in this context because the matter whether inaccurate declaration has been made by the respondent, either in respect of agricultural income tax before the concerned department [...] or before the Federal Board of Revenue, is a matter which is sub-judice before different forums in the income tax hierarchy and even before this court," the court reasoned.
"Besides, no action so far for the alleged misdeclaration or short payment has been taken against the respondent by the authorities under the Act of 1997," therefore Tareen cannot yet be judged to be a dishonest man, the court ruled.
Charge No.3: Jahangir Tareen got his company's loans written off by abusing his authority as a public figure, hence he is dishonest.
The verdict: That is incorrect.
The court was not convinced that Tareen had misused his authority to have any loans written off. The company in question that Tareen was said to have benefited, FPML, was actually found to have had its loans written off before 2010 — when Tareen was neither a shareholder nor a director of the company.
"He became the shareholder and director with effect from 29.12.2010 to 4.2.2013 and during this period no loans were written-off," the court noted.
Charge No.4: Jahangir Tareen was the owner of a property in the UK which he had not declared in his nomination papers, hence he had been dishonest.
The verdict: Guilty!
"We hold that Shiny View Limited (SVL), an off-shore company, was established by the respondent which has legal title of the property measuring 12 acres known as “Hyde House” but the actual, true, real and beneficial owner of the said property is the respondent," ruled the court.
"Respondent has sent around more than Rs500 million at the exchange rate prevalent at that time and claims that amount to have been utilized for the purposes of purchase and construction of “Hyde House”.
"SVL or Hyde House was never transferred to any trust by the respondent, thus, it is his asset, which he has failed to declare in his nomination papers filed on 9.9.2015 according to the mandate of the law to contest the by-elections from NA-154 Lodhran and, therefore, he is not honest in terms of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution read with Section 99(1)(f) of ROPA."
"Besides, in his concise statement the respondent in unequivocal, clear and unambiguous terms stated that he has no beneficial interest in the trust arrangement which holds the SVL and the Hyde House, however from the trust deed dated 5.5.2011, on which reliance has been placed by the respondent himself, he is the ‘discretionary lifetime beneficiary’ along with his spouse and, therefore, this is a blatant misstatement on the part of the respondent made before the highest judicial forum of the country which is not a trait of an honest person."
"Consequently, on both the counts mentioned above, the respondent is declared not to be an honest person in terms of the constitutional provisions and the provisions of ROPA, therefore, he ceases to be the member of the Parliament having incurred the disqualification."