Declare UK flat as an asset or bear consequences: Pak SC to Imran Khan

The court also asked for the account details of Niazi Services Limited (NSL), Khan's offshore company

Pakistan Supreme Court today said cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan's failure to declare his London flat as an asset can have legal consequences, according to a media report.

The case has been filed against Khan by the ruling PML-N party. The PML-N party alleges that Khan misrepresented his financial details in the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).

The proceedings of the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf chief Khan's disqualification case, being heard by a three-member Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice Nisar, resumed after being suspended on September 7, Dawn reported.

Nisar said that the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf chief's failure to declare his London flat as an asset can have legal consequences.

Explaining why Khan had not declared his London flat as an asset in his nomination papers, Khan's lawyer Naeem Bokhari said that since the apartment was not in Pakistan and was bought from money he had earned abroad, the Pakistan Tehreek- i-Insaf chairman did not mention it in his papers.

In July, 64-year-old Khan had told the court that while he had not included his London flat in his tax returns, it was declared through a tax amnesty scheme in 2000 and subsequently, appeared in his election nomination papers for 2002.

During the hearing, the court demanded that Khan's counsel submit documents that prove he borrowed and returned 560,000 pounds to his former wife Jemima.

Bokhari told the court that the money was transferred to Jemima through an account in the Royal Bank.

However, the money trail of 100,000 pounds could not be traced, Bokhari said and requested the court to grant more time so they can try and track it down.

The bench also asked for the account details of Niazi Services Limited (NSL), Khan's offshore company, that was dissolved in 2015. Khan's accountant, who appeared in court today to provide details of the politician's accounts from 2001-04, admitted that he did not have them.

In July, Bokhari had argued that his client's non-disclosure of NSL was an error of "omission", not an act of "dishonesty".

However, in today's hearing, the chief justice reiterated Sheikh's point and said that since USD 1,000 were an asset, Khan should have declared the sum in his nomination papers.

The court also demanded the money trail of 75,000 pounds that were remitted in 2000 from London to Pakistan. Bokhari confessed that the bank records of the transfer were not available.