Benazir’s unprecedented Corruption


By Dr Anwar-ul-Haq


A man was killed in a war, some companions said he is shaheed and he will go to Jannah. Prophet (s.a.w) said if a person took someone’s money illegally  with no intent to return he will go to hell. It is a fact that PPP in collaboration with foreign hands arranged 2 bomb attacks on PPP rallies to enhance PPP popularity. USA airlifted 2 bomb proof double decker strong vehicles for Benazir protection. In Karachi she was protected. In Rawalpindi for some reason she did not use that vehicle. She died due to hit of vehicle lever to her head which resulted in ventricular fibrillation. Her death was an eye opener for everyone who adores this world. Taking advantage of her death Zardari, Malik and Babar prepared a fabricated will of Benazir fooling all PPP sincere workers.


Below is some detail how Benazir and Zardari took illegal money and sent the entire nation into the darkness of not only load shedding, unemployment, sky rocketing prices, sinking rupee but also in the darkness of jahilia, killing, crimes! Please read and cry and then………. don’t go to sleep. Wake up and take charge of this nation with proper connection with Allah through Quran. Quran enlarged true Islamic state of 4 squire miles to 3,300,000 squire miles in no time and founded all modern sciences and pulled Europe out of utter darkness. Today evil forces of darkness has wedged a war on Quran in disguise of war on terrorism!


Corruption charges against Benazir Bhutto:


A 1998 New York Times investigative report[2] claims that Pakistani investigators have documents that uncover a network of bank accounts, all linked to the family’s lawyer in Switzerland, with Asif Zardari as the principal shareholder. According to the article, documents released by the French authorities indicated that Zardari offered exclusive rights to Dassault, a French aircraft manufacturer, to replace the air force’s fighter jets in exchange for a 5% commission to be paid to a Swiss corporation controlled by Zardari. The article also said a Dubai company received an exclusive licence to import gold into Pakistan for which Asif Zardari received payments of more than $10 million into his Dubai-based Citibank accounts. The owner of the company denied that he had made payments to Zardari and claims the documents were forged.

The prosecutors have alleged that their Swiss bank accounts contain £740 million.[6] Zardari also bought a neo-Tudor mansion and estate worth over £4 million in Surrey, England, UK.[7][8] The Pakistani investigations have tied other overseas properties to Zardari’s family. These include a $2.5 million manor in Normandy owned by Zardari’s parents, who had modest assets at the time of his marriage.[2] Bhutto denied holding substantive overseas assets.

In 1995, a leading French military contractor, Dassault Aviation, agreed to pay Mr. Zardari and a Pakistani partner $200 million for a $4 billion jet fighter deal that fell apart only when Ms. Bhutto’s Government was dismissed. In another deal, a leading Swiss company hired to curb customs fraud in Pakistan paid millions of dollars between 1994 and 1996 to offshore companies controlled by Mr. Zardari and Ms. Bhutto’s widowed mother, Nusrat.

In the largest single payment investigators have discovered, a gold bullion dealer in the Middle East was shown to have deposited at least $10 million into an account controlled by Mr. Zardari after the Bhutto Government gave him a monopoly on gold imports that sustained Pakistan’s jewelry industry. The money was deposited into a Citibank account in the United Arab Emirate of Dubai, one of several Citibank accounts for companies owned by Mr. Zardari.

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. Alison Langley (NYT)


The decision of the Swiss judge who found Benazir Bhutto and Zardari guilty of corruption and receiving kickbacks in SGS Cotecna case led to six months suspended sentence. Both appealed against it and when this appeal was about to be finalised, Musharraf bailed the couple out through NRO and withdrew these Swiss cases, so the couple was saved from punishment, but this does not mean that they did not commit any corruption.
Our worthy news anchors should have a look at this material and question PPP stalwarts who shamelessly lie during talk shows to defend their masters. The Law Minister Babar Awan should also consider before telling the Supreme Court that there were no cases in the Swiss Court.
Benazir Bhutto and Asif Zardari were held guilty of money laundering by the Swiss Court.
Investigation Judge Daniel Devaud in Geneva sentenced them to a six-month suspended jail term, fined them $50,000 each and ordered they pay more than $2m to the Pakistani Government.
He said they had illegally deposited millions of dollars in accounts in Switzerland, and ordered the money be returned to Pakistan.
The case relates to a 1998 indictment in which Benazir Bhutto was accused of having access to money obtained through kickbacks and commissions from two Swiss companies with contracts with the then Pakistani Government.
An investigation found several numbered accounts in Switzerland in which more than $11m had been deposited.
Benazir Bhutto strongly denied having had access to the accounts.
The couple’s lawyer, Farooq Naek, at the time described the order as “illogical, unreasonable, inconsistent with law, based on malafide and … politically motivated.” He complained that the announcement had been made without notices having been served on either Benazir or Zardari.
Story from BBC NEWS:
Published: 2003/08/05 11:37:01 GMT
© BBC MMX ( necklace exposed Bhutto money-laundering trail
Details emerged of how a £117,000 diamond necklace led to the Benazir Bhutto and Asif Zardari being convicted of money laundering by a Swiss court.
The pair were given suspended jail sentences of six months each and ordered to repay about £8m to the Pakistani government.
The Swiss investigating magistrate found that during her second term as PM she enriched herself or her husband with kickbacks from a government contract with two Swiss companies.
“There is no doubt that the behaviour of Benazir Bhutto and her husband is criminally reprehensible in Pakistan,” the magistrate, Daniel Devaud wrote in his sentencing order after the five-year investigation.
The order, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, says that in 1995 the two companies, SGS and Cotecna, took up a contract for customs inspection of goods being imported into Pakistan.
The judge cited letters showing that 6% of the amount paid by the Pakistani government under the inspection contract would be paid as commission to companies registered in the British Virgin Islands.
One of these, Bomer Finances Inc, received $8.2m and another, Nassam Overseas Inc, received $3.8m, the judge found.
The beneficial owner of Bomer Finance is Asif Ali Zardari, but in reality she shares the assets with him and has the power of disposition, the judge said.
The beneficial owner of Nassam Overseas is Nasir Hussain, who at the time was Ms Bhutto’s brother-in-law, he added.
Evidence of Ms Bhutto’s role in Bomer Finance emerged from a visit to London during which she bought a diamond necklace at a Knightsbridge jeweller’s.
The £117,000 bill was paid partly in cash and partly with money from Bomer Finance’s account.
It was the only withdrawal made from the company’s account before its assets were frozen at the request of the Pakistani authorities. The necklace was later found in a Swiss bank vault, and was also seized.
Under the judge’s ruling it must now be handed over to the Pakistani state.
Jeremy Carver, a lawyer who represented the Pakistani government five years ago in relation to Benazir, said that there were “at least half a dozen international cases at various stages in various pipelines, either in Pakistan, Switzerland or the United States”.
Benazir’s Rockwood estate at Brooke in Surrey, valued at £3.5m, is currently being sold by the Pakistani government.
She is believed to own four other properties in London.
This article was published on on Friday 8 August 2003.
Foreign cases that could haunt Bhutto
By Richard Lawson
BBC News, LondonIn 2003, the 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 Benazir and 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.
Benazir contested the decision, which was made in her absence, and the case is being reheard, with the former PM now facing the more serious charge of aggravated money-laundering.
Vincent Fournier, the Swiss judge in charge of the current case, told the BBC he planned to hand the case over to Geneva’s attorney-general.
A second international case involving Ms Bhutto is under way in England.
In this case, the government of Pakistan alleged that Benazir and her husband bought Rockwood, a $3.4m country estate in Surrey, using money from kickbacks.
Benazir and Zardari denied owning the estate for eight years. But in 2004, Mr Zardari suddenly admitted that it was his.
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 Benazir and/or her husband bought and refurbished Rockwood with “the fruits of corruption”.
Asked by the BBC about Rockwood, Benazir’s officials denied any allegations of corruption, but gave no detailed response, although her husband’s lawyers told Justice Collins that Pakistan’s case was speculative.
The London case is a civil one. That means it could collapse should President Musharraf’s government decide not to pursue it.
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 Benazir was Petroline FZC’s chairwoman.
Swiss judge wraps up Bhutto money-laundering probe
Stephanie Nebehay (
Oct 18, 2007
GENEVA (Reuters) – A Swiss investigative judge said on October 17 that he had completed a long-running probe into alleged money laundering by Benazir Bhutto and her husband.
Judge Vincent Fournier, who spoke as Bhutto returned to her homeland after eight years in self-exile, said he would hand over his confidential findings next week to Geneva chief prosecutor Daniel Zappelli for action.
Zappelli has three options — to bring the case to trial, suspend it, or dismiss it.
Fournier conceded that money-laundering allegations would be harder to prove under Swiss law after President Pervez Musharraf granted an amnesty to protect Bhutto from corruption charges at home.
“It is not impossible, but much more difficult,” he said. “The fact that Pakistan has withdrawn its own prosecution does not help the Swiss demonstration of money-laundering.”
At least $13 million remains frozen in bank accounts in the Swiss city in connection with the criminal case, which relates to alleged kickbacks from Swiss cargo inspection companies in the 1990s, officials said. “I regard my investigation as completed and the case is ready for the prosecutor,” Fournier told Reuters.
To obtain a conviction under Swiss federal law, a prosecutor must prove that graft or other crimes have been committed abroad and the proceeds were laundered in Switzerland. A conviction for aggravated money-laundering can mean up to five years in prison.
Bhutto and Zardari were convicted in Geneva in 2003 of having laundered funds worth some $13 million through offshore companies and ordered to return the frozen funds to the Pakistani government, which currently remains a civil party in the case.
But this verdict was thrown out automatically upon appeal, sparking a new probe. Bhutto denied the money-laundering charges in testimony two years ago before Fournier.
Alec Reymond, Bhutto’s lawyer in Geneva, said he expected Zappelli to drop the case following Musharraf’s amnesty, which also applies to Zardari.
“The abandonment of the prosecution in Pakistan should lead to the affair being closed in Geneva,” Reymond told Reuters.
Bhutto’s return could eventually lead to power sharing with Musharraf, the army chief who took power in a 1999 coup. Pakistan’s Supreme Court has still to rule on the legality of the amnesty and of Musharraf’s recent re-election.
Source: (

ISLAMABAD: The National Accountability ( Bureau (NAB) on Thursday released copies of a Swiss Examining Magistrate’s order for restitution of $2.4 million to Pakistan ( seized from the DARGAL Accounts, asserting that it clearly establishes the involvement of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto and Asif Ali Zardari in the corruption ( case.

The accused, thereby, caused loss of Rs 268.30 million to the ADBP and a loss of Rs 1.671 billion to the state exchequer on account of exemption from the customs duty and the sales tax, a brief about facts said.

Furthermore, accused Benazir Bhutto and accused Asif Ali Zardari received 7.15 per cent commission/kickback ( on the purchase through their front men, namely accused Jens Schlegelmilch and accused Didier Plantin of Dargal SA, who received about $196,925,095 on account of the supply of said 5,900 Ursus tractors, it concluded.

The spokesman pointed out that the names of the main accused and their proven linkages to the DARGAL Accounts appeared several times in the case in which Benazir Bhutto and nine others including Asif Ali Zardari, were accused of having collected in the course of 1990s, corruption ( commissions on government contracts concluded for foreign companies.

Order of Restitution

He referred to the Order of Restitution, saying it states that the file establishes beyond any 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.

Benazir Bhutto is the principal accused in the case while nine other included: Asif Ali Zardari, Ex MNA Yousaf Talpur, Ex-minister for Agriculture, Badruddin Zahidi, Ex-chairman, ADBP, AMH Kangu, Ex DG (Awami Tractor Scheme), ADBP, Jens Schlegelmilch, Didier Plantin, Steve Shanks, Zigniew Bzideck, Director Special Operations. Zakaldy Przemyshu Chiagnikowego, “Ursus”, and Amer Lodhi.

The NAB spokesman said according to the order the documentary evidence and the statements of the persons heard allow, without any ambiguity, to link the transfers credited to the banking relationship of DARGAL to the commissions paid by URSUS for the sale of its tractors to a Pakistani governmental entity.(

  Pakistan: The Causes Cannot Be Ignored!

Diamond necklace exposed Bhutto money-laundering trail
What are those notorious Swiss cases which the SC has asked the government to reopen in its judgment against NRO?

The decision of the Swiss judge who found Benazir Bhutto and Zardari guilty of corruption and receiving kickbacks in SGS Cotecna case led to six months suspended sentence. Both appealed against it and when this appeal was about to be finalised, Musharraf bailed the couple out through NRO and withdrew these Swiss cases, so the couple was saved from punishment, but this does not mean that they did not commit any corruption.

Our worthy news anchors should have a look at this material and question PPP stalwarts who shamelessly lie during talk shows to defend their masters. The Law Minister Babar Awan should also consider before telling the Supreme Court that there were no cases in the Swiss Court.

Benazir Bhutto and Asif Zardari were held guilty of money laundering by the Swiss Court.

Investigation Judge Daniel Devaud in Geneva sentenced them to a six-month suspended jail term, fined them $50,000 each and ordered they pay more than $2m to the Pakistani Government.

He said they had illegally deposited millions of dollars in accounts in Switzerland, and ordered the money be returned to Pakistan.

The case relates to a 1998 indictment in which Benazir Bhutto was accused of having access to money obtained through kickbacks and commissions from two Swiss companies with contracts with the then Pakistani Government.

An investigation found several numbered accounts in Switzerland in which more than $11m had been deposited.

Evidence of Ms Bhutto’s role in Bomer Finance emerged from a visit to London during which she bought a diamond necklace at a Knightsbridge jeweller’s.

The £117,000 bill was paid partly in cash and partly with money from Bomer Finance’s account.

It was the only withdrawal made from the company’s account before its assets were frozen at the request of the Pakistani authorities. The necklace was later found in a Swiss bank vault, and was also seized.

Under the judge’s ruling it must now be handed over to the Pakistani state.

Jeremy Carver, a lawyer who represented the Pakistani government five years ago in relation to Benazir, said that there were “at least half a dozen international cases at various stages in various pipelines, either in Pakistan, Switzerland or the United States”.

Benazir’s Rockwood estate at Brooke in Surrey, valued at £3.5m, is currently being sold by the Pakistani government.

She is believed to own four other properties in London. (


ISLAMABAD: The actual state of the Swiss cases of corruption and money laundering against President Asif Ali Zardari in 2008 is totally different from what Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan presented before the Supreme Court in the prime minister contempt case on Thursday, court documents available with The News show.


These papers reveal that President Zardari had not only been convicted in October 2007 but even his appeal against his conviction was rejected by the Swiss Court of Appeals on March 19, 2008.


The Swiss Court of Appeals had even rejected President Zardari’s plea to exclude the State of Pakistan as a civil party from the money laundering case, a relief which the PPP government is not seeking from the Supreme Court of Pakistan.


Not only this but President Zardari’s plea that the Swiss Court of Appeals should keep the issue pending till the Supreme Court in Pakistan (the then Dogar court) decides the fate of NRO was rejected for having no grounds whatsoever.


Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan hid these fact from the apex court or he may not be in the knowledge of the fact that President Zardari’s case in Swiss Court of Appeals against his conviction was so weak that the court even ordered him to pay the cost of appeal and fee. At this stage, the Swiss trial court was to sentence President Zardari on the basis of conviction by Investigating Magistrate which was upheld by Swiss Court of Appeal within a legal time of two to three months allowed under the Swiss law when former attorney general Malik Qayum withdrew the requests of mutual legal assistance as well as surrendered the civil party status of the State of Pakistan and its claim on frozen money of millions of dollars in Swiss accounts.


Aitzaz also repeatedly tried to convince the seven-member bench that Swiss cases were dropped in 2008 not merely on the letter of Malik Muhammad Qayyum but the Swiss attorney general while dropping these cases also wrote that there was not sufficient evidence.


However, this statement of Aitzaz Ahsan was also in complete contradiction of facts. First of all, the Swiss Investigating Magistrate had given a judgment on October 29, 2007 after completely examining all the evidences and witnesses, and on the basis of the same evidences and witnesses even the Swiss Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of investigating magistrate on March 19, 2008.


Secondly, when the State of Pakistan withdrew the request for mutual legal assistance and even surrendered its claim over the money, it initially alleged was looted and plundered money, the Swiss attorney very rightly wrote that now there were ‘no sufficient evidences’ as all claims were surrendered by the claiming state itself.


According to the documents of Swiss court Asif Ali Zardari was close to being convicted by a Swiss Court of Appeals in the $60 million money laundering case well before he became the president in September 2008, had Malik Qayyum not illegally, and in violation of rules, requested the withdrawal of cases in April 2008.The Court of Appeals in Geneva, presided over by Mrs Valerie Laemmel-Juillard (chairwoman) with two judges Mr Louis Peila and Mrs Carole Barbey had rejected all pleas of Zardari and his lawyers and had passed an order OCA/67/2008, which was delivered on Wednesday March 19, 2008.


One of the pleas was that the proceedings should be stayed until the Supreme Court in Pakistan decides the fate of the NRO. This too was rejected by the Swiss court. The Swiss Court of Appeals had also rejected a plethora of other pleas on March 19, 2008, declaring them “inadmissible and ill-founded.”


Zardari was then to be tried in a trial court there and the court would have been bound to give a decision around May-June 2008. Zardari had moved the appellate court against the Investigating Magistrate court’s verdict delivered on October 29, 2007, which had closed the investigation in the case and had confirmed that the Government of Pakistan was a civil party in the case.


According to Swiss laws, after completion of the investigation, the Investigating Magistrate sends the case to the Attorney General who presents it before the trial court for trial that is carried out in a scheduled period, not exceeding 2-3 months. As Zardari sought the case be sent back to the Magistrate for him to be interrogated, the appellant court rejected the plea in a detailed verdict on March 19, 2008, noting that Zardari was summoned six times and he did not appear, the court documents reveal.


He had excused his appearance three times on health grounds and did not appear for another three times without any excuse, according to the documents. His appeal for excluding the State of Pakistan as civil party to the case, albeit his own government was running the show by time, was also rejected by the court.


Another plea requesting the grant of stay “until the Supreme Court of Pakistan decides upon the validity of the NRO of 5 October, 2007” was also rejected. The court not only rejected his appeal, he was also directed to pay the cost of appeal and fee.


Prayer for stay until the Supreme Court of Pakistan decides the NRO: The Swiss Appellant Court, discussing the pray, said the submission for the stay until the Supreme Court of Pakistan decides the validity of the NRO “is inadmissible, as the CPP (Code of Penal Procedure) does not provide for the possibility to stay the investigation of an appeal filed before the present Court.”


It further noted: “Supposing that this submission tended, in reality, to the stay of criminal pursuit in the sense of Art. 87 CPP, it would also be inadmissible, the present Court being only competent to order such a measure when it is seized with the charge-sheet drafted by the Attorney General, which is not the case here, meaning that the Court will not discuss that issue.”


Prayer that Zardari himself also be interrogated, rejected: “The appellant has not any further requested from the Investigating Magistrate, before the decision of transmittal, to be interrogated on his record and his personal situation. In this respect, the appeal is also inadmissible. If one admitted the contrary, the appeal should however be rejected on that point as ill-founded because, contrary to what is alleged, the appellant was indeed interrogated concerning his personal situation and this was soon as his indictment through Letters rogatory in 1998. Asif Zardari limited himself at that time to complain about the conditions of his imprisonment and of his state of health, without answering on the question that was asked. Moreover, he defaulted at numerous times, not excused, at hearings held in the frame of the procedure in Geneva. The Court has therefore to acknowledge that the indicted had at many times the occasion to express himself on his personal situation and his record, but that he deliberately chose to adopt a passive attitude, meaning that one cannot consider that his right to be heard was violated in any way. The appellant is the only responsible to blame for not having expressed himself on his record and his personal situation.”


Request for expelling the State of Pakistan as civil party, also rejected: The court states: “One had to acknowledge also that the request of the appellant to have the Islamic Republic of Pakistan expelled from the procedure as not having the quality of civil party has not formally being submitted by the appellant to the Investigating Magistrate before the order of transmittal and since the last determination of the present Court on that subject. Indeed such a request had been made to the Investigating Magistrate by the late Benazir Bhutto on 18 August, 2006. However, the appellant has not formally supported that request of his late spouse. Moreover, the appellant has never again challenged that constitution of civil party after its confirmation by the present Court on 18 October 2004… Consequently, the appeal is also inadmissible on that point. It will be further pointed out that one cannot, in the same procedure, negate the quality of civil party for certain of the alleged offences on the ground that the civil party has not been damaged, although it is admitted for the rest of the other offences. However, in the present instance, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is also constituted civil party for acts reproached to Jens Schlegelmilch who, on his part, has not filed any appeal against the decision attached — which is particular confirms the quality of the civil party — and has not done so since the last order rendered on that issue by the present Court. Consequently, the appellee cannot be withdrawn from the present procedure. Even admissible on that point, the appeal would remain ill-founded.”


NO Immunity for Zardari

By A Khokar • Jan 21st, 2012 • Category: Politics • 6 Comments

In April 1999, Swiss courts caught three criminals; Asif Ali Zardari, Miss Benazir Bhutto and their partner Dr. J. Schlegelmilch, a Swiss lawyer, on laundering some 60 million of stolen and kick back money stashed in Swiss banks accounts. This alerted the Pakistani government and Pakistan put up a claim in the Swiss courts that this stolen money belongs to Pakistani peoples. The case study says that; (excerpt)- ‘The Government of Pakistan claims a declaration that it is beneficially entitled to the relevant payments received into the Zardari Swiss bank accounts”, to the background to the purchase of the Rockwood Estate, and to such other assets of the Companies as are found to have derived directly or indirectly from the alleged secret commissions and/ or bribes.’[1]

For their proven crimes Zardari, Miss Bhutto and their partner were convicted for laundering the stolen money in 2003 and sentenced but after lodging an appeal this case was still under reinvestigation that mean while General Pervez Musharraf granted a general amnesty by issuing a National Reconciliation order-NRO and cases against most of the culprits were withdrawn. Likewise, the claim of Pakistan in the Swiss court to retrieve the stolen money from Zardari, Miss Benazir Bhutto was also withdrawn. Basing on the grant of NRO; reportedly; Swiss courts also set aside the money laundering case and frozen banks accounts were released back to the Zardari and his associates.

Off late in 2009, this infamous NRO was contested in the courts and was placed as defunct and any such amnesty or the benefits since coined by its beneficiaries were ab initio withdrawn and NRO cancelled. As all the cases in the courts were ordered to be re-opened; SC also ordered the Government to reopen the case of its claim in Swiss courts.

Ironically; the culprit of pilferage and laundering millions of dollars abroad; MR Asif Ali Zardari by now had become the president of Pakistan and the entire official machinery was lined up that Swiss courts may not be contacted to re-open the subject claim case.

Being a President; Asif Ali Zardari is adamant not to write to the Swiss courts that he enjoys an immunity of any criminal trial in the court under the constitutional privilege entrusted to the President; not withstanding that Zardari being a president may be entitled to an immunity in Criminal cases vide article 248 of Constitution but here Pakistan is mere a claimant of recovery of its money in this theft which is a Civil case and sadly; President does not enjoy any immunity in Civil cases. It seems there is no respite or the immunity for the devil.

One wonders how the most renowned lawyer Mr. Ehtazaz Ahsan in the Apex Courts is also seen insisting on the Immunity of President Zardari in reopening the Swiss bank case for which the beleagured Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani is made a scapegoat. PM is held accountable on contempt of court order for not writing to Swiss court to re-open the case when subject case is not a criminal but mere a Civil case for retrieving of money which belongs to peoples of Pakistan.

Although there is hardly any chance to find some money still lying in the Swiss banks to retrieve it back but one may certainly trace it out converted into 100 Billions accumulated assets of Asif ali Zardari in the United Kingdom, France, Switzerland, the United States of America and the British Virgin Islands (BVI). ‘Assets knowledge Recovery Centre’ in its ‘The International Centre for Recovery Report’ states that:

  Israel-Palestine Ceasefire

Benazir Bhutto and Asif Ali Zardari

”A consummate politician, Benezir Bhutto was twice appointed Prime Minister of Pakistan (1988-1990 and 1993-1996). On both occasions she was dismissed from office for alleged corruption and misrule or bad governance. 1 Between 1998 and 2007 Bhutto lived in exile from Pakistan in Dubai and London. She returned to Pakistan in October 2007 after reaching an understanding with President Pervez Musharraf by which she was granted amnesty and all corruption charges were withdrawn. However, Benazir Bhutto political life was ended with her assassinated on December 27, 2007.

Her husband Asif Ali Zardari (now the current President of Pakistan) also played a prominent role in both administrations. He served as Minister of Investment from 1993 to 1996. During Bhutto’s terms as prime minister, Zardari is alleged to have masterminded various corruption related activities involving millions of dollars with Bhutto’s knowledge. Zardari gained the reputation of demanding a certain percent of government contracts issued to business people, thereby earning a succession of nicknames: Mr 5 Percent, Mr 10 Percent, Mr. 20 Percent, Mr 30 Percent, and Mr 100 Percent.

In total, Bhutto-Zardari accumulated assets worth over $100 million in the United Kingdom, France, Switzerland, the United States of America and the British Virgin Islands (BVI). 2 Some estimates place Bhutto-Zardari loot at more than $ 1.5 billion. This sum allegedly came from illicit profits through kickbacks in every sphere of government activity, including: rice export deals, the sell-off of state land, purchase of planes for Pakistan International Airlines, sugar mills, oil and gas permits, awarding of broadcast licenses, privatization of state-owned industries and rake-offs from state welfare schemes.””

  • Chronology of Asif Ali Zardari and Miss Bhutto Embezzlement

It all started when in:

1988: Benazir Bhutto elected Prime Minister of Pakistan, the first woman to lead a Muslim country.

1990: Bhutto was dismissed by President Khan on allegations of corruption and misrule.

1993: Bhutto became Prime Minister for a second time.

1996, July: Bhutto appointed Asif Ali Zardari as Minister of Investment.

1996, November 5: Bhutto dismissed for the second time by President Laghari on allegations of gross corruption and misrule.

Corruption Allegations

Among them are the appointment of 26,000 party supporters to state jobs and state-owned banks during Bhutto’s term as Prime Minister, unsecured government loans to 50 large projects through which Bhutto and Zardari benefitted by having loans given to frontmen. In total, Zardari received £10 million in investment funds in three new sugar mills. Zardari received a kickback amounting to 40 million rupee on a contract involvng the Pakistan Steel Mill. 1

1994: Bhutto influenced the award the preshipment verification contract to a Swiss corporation Société Générale de-Surveillance (SGS) and its then subsidiary Cotecna in return for consultancy fees (kickbacks) of 6 percent and 3 percent to two Bhutto and Zardari controlled companies in British Virgin Island (BVI) under the names Bomer Finances Inc and Nassam Overseas Inc. Money paid to Swiss bank accounts linked to these companies amounted to $12 million. In the same year, it is also alleged that a commission of 7 percent was paid on importation of $83 million worth of tractors from Poland. Zardari’s Caribbean company, Dargal Associated received this payment, which was confirmed by Ursus Tractors of Poland. 2

1994: Zardari received bribes amounting to $10 million through a shell company Capricorn Trading from a businessman Razzak Yaqub trading under the name A.R.Y. International Exchange in exchange for an exclusive import license of gold into Pakistan. Yaqub shipped more than $ 500 million in gold to Pakistan over a period of three years, while Zardari benefitted through bribes paid into the Dubai and Swiss Citibank accounts, which were opened with the assistance of the Swiss lawyer Jens Schlegelmilch. In total Zardari received over $ 40 million. 3

1996: Bhutto and Zardari allegedly demanded a 5 percent ‘remuneration’ in $ 4 billion contract involving purchase of fighter jets, in which three French companies were involved, namely: Dassault Aviation, Snecma, and Thomson-CSF. The 5 percent was to be paid to Marleton Business S.A., one of Zardari’s British Virgin Island companies. The deal collapsed when Bhutto was deposed. 4


1997, October: Swiss government began a probe into Swiss involvement in Bhutto’s corrupt SGS/Cotecna deal, and moved to freeze $ 13.7mil USD in Swiss bank accounts owned by Bhutto, Zardari, and family. In August of 1998, a Swiss Magistrate wrote an opinion urging Pakistani authorities to indict Bhutto themselves using evidence gathered in Switzerland. In April of 1999, an Accountability Court in Lahore sentenced Bhutto and Zardari on corruption charges to five years in jail, $8.6mil USD in fines, and disqualified Bhutto from politics for twenty-one years.

Bhutto appealed this conviction to the Pakistani Supreme Court, which reversed the lower court ruling and remanded the case back to a different Accountability Court, deeming the initial sentence, “politically motivated.”


2003: In Switzerland an investigating magistrate judge found both Bhutto and Zardari guilty of aggravated money laundering in connection to the SGS/Cotecna probe. Bhutto’s attorneys appealed and had this conviction overturned on procedural grounds, because the investigating magistrate had not conducted a hearing in determining this verdict. Additional charges were raised by another Swiss magistrate in July of 2004, thereby reopening the case.

2003: The Swiss magistrate found that during her second term as Prime Minister Bhutto enriched herself and her husband with kickbacks from a government contract with two Swiss companies. 5


2007, October: President Musharaff granted blanket immunity for past corrupt actions, shielding many public officials and members of the government from prosecution. This applied to Bhutto and Zardari, though not to political opponent Nawar Sharif. Bhutto returned to Pakistan and subsequently re-entered into Pakistani politics.

A Lahore High Court chose to reserve judgment on the initial SGS/Cotecna case that had been remanded from the Supreme Court, fearing another Bhutto appeal on the grounds of political bias.

2007, December: Following the assassination of Bhutto’s in December of 2007, both the Pakistani and Swiss charges relating to the SGS/Cotecna case were dropped. Probes into Zardari’s actions in relation to this case are still ongoing. Altogether, it is believed that the government of Pakistan lost over US $ 2 billion in potential revenues because of Bhutto’s corruption.

Pervez Musharraf general Amnesty of NRO spelled trouble for Swiss Bhutto case

Inernational Centre for Asset recovery wrote at the time:

The former Pakistani prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, may avoid a money-laundering trial in Switzerland thanks to a new corruption amnesty at home.

A “reconciliation ordinance” issued by the Pakistani government last week grants across-the-board immunity for politicians who were active between 1988 and 1999.

Daniel Zappelli, the general prosecutor of Geneva, is facing a quandary. Should the politician and her husband stand trial now that Bhutto has been granted an amnesty by her own country?

The couple were accused of receiving multi-million dollar kickbacks in exchange for handing out a contract to a Swiss firm during Bhutto’s second term in office between 1993 and 1996.

The couple were first convicted of simple money laundering in 2003 by a Geneva investigating judge who handed down a six-month suspended sentence. The Bhuttos appealed against the magistrate’s decision but were later accused of more serious money laundering offences.

Most observers agree the amnesty signed by Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf was part of pre-election horse-trading. It paves the way for a power-sharing deal between the two politicians, which could see long-exiled Bhutto move back into the prime minister’s job next year.

Cases “withdrawn”

The Pakistani minister for law affairs, Zahid Hamid, said in Islamabad last week that five corruption cases were still pending against Benazir Bhutto abroad while six cases were pending against her husband Asif Zardari.

Hamid added that corruption cases against the couple pending in foreign courts would be dropped.

“Any case against any holder of the public office registered before October 1999 and still pending with the courts would be withdrawn under the ordinance,” Hamid explained.

However Dominique Henchoz, the lawyer representing the Pakistani government in Geneva said it was still not clear whether legal action would be stopped.

“We’ll have to wait to examine the exact wording used in the decree,” he added. “Because surely to speak of an amnesty implies that there has been an act of corruption?”

An official at the Pakistani embassy in Bern declined to comment on the case when contacted by swissinfo, saying that it was being handled directly from Islamabad.

Frozen accounts

The case, opened in 1998, involved the Geneva-based Société Générale de Surveillance (SGS), the world’s biggest verification, testing and certification services group.

The three investigating judges in Geneva who have dealt with the file for a decade found that Bhutto and her husband received $12 million (SFr14.25 million) in Swiss bank accounts belonging to companies registered in the Virgin Islands and Panama.

Assets belonging to the Bhuttos were frozen following an official Pakistani request in 1997. Following the amnesty, it is not clear who will claim these funds.

Vincent Fournier, one of the three judges, has confirmed his office is about to pass on the case to the prosecutor.

“It is surprising to note that for ten years Pakistan has constantly pushed us to see that justice be done. And now, in the light of a change of political allegiance, Madame Bhutto benefits from an amnesty,” Fournier pointed out.

Bhutto’s lawyer Alec Raymond believes the situation is now crystal clear. From the moment where there is no prior crime, “there cannot be money laundering. We are heading for the end of the Geneva procedure,” he told swissinfo.

Meanwhile Bhutto is preparing for her homecoming after eight years of exile. She is scheduled to return to Pakistan on October 18. Her husband will remain in Dubai.


Date: 24-Mar-2005

The sudden and belated claim of Jens Schlegelmilch in the Dargal Case, on behalf of some undisclosed ultimate principal, has delayed the restitution of US $ 2.4 million to people of Pakistan from Switzerland. On the plea of not being heard, the Geneva Court of Appeals in its recent decision has referred the matter back to the Examining Magistrate, who had earlier ordered for the restitution. The funds are to remain frozen in the meantime. It may be noted that Jens Schlegelmilch alongwith Benazir Bhutto and Asif Ali Zardari has already been indicted on the charges of aggravated money laundering in a separate SGS case which is still under progress.

In June 1998, an Ehtesab Reference was filed wherein it was alleged that Benazir Bhutto, Asif Ali Zardari in collusion with Jens Schlegelmilch & others obtained illegal gratification and undue pecuniary advantage in the form of commission/ kickbacks in purchase of URSUS tractors under Awami Tractor Scheme (ATS). A bank account in Switzerland in the name of DARGAL Associated SA, an offshore company, was used to receive the commission/ kickbacks. The case is pending trial in Accountability Court Rawalpindi.

Based upon the available evidence, Government of Pakistan had filed a request for Mutual Legal Assistance to Switzerland for obtaining information/ documents particularly about the bank account in the name of DARGAL Associated SA, an offshore company where the commission/ kickbacks were received. The Govt of Pakistan’s (GOP) request was accepted and the Swiss Authorities handed over the requisite evidence to GOP and the same is attached with the reference.
Page 1 of 2
According to the account opening forms, signed by Jens Schlegelmilch as Director of Dargal Associates, the beneficial owner of the concerned funds is Amer Lodhi. When the Examining Magistrate heard him, Amer Lodhi disowned the concerned funds and stated that he had no claim over these funds. Subsequently on the request of GOP, on November 18, 2003, the EM ordered for the restitution of approx. U.S $ 2.4 million from the account of DARGAL Associated SA to GOP.

The GOP would take all legal steps available in the Swiss Law to expedite the early recovery of funds for the poor people of Pakistan.


Judgment of Swiss magistrate in SGS, Cotecna case

ISLAMABAD, Aug 8: The following is the concluding part of text of the judgment of Swiss investigating magistrate, Mr Daniel Devaud, in the SGS, Cotecna case against Ms Benazir Bhutto:

• 14 April 1997 USD 139,062.80 for the period of the fourth quarter 1996 for payments received by SGS (cf. pp. 1699-1700);

• 19 August 1997 USD 190,063.30 for the period of the first quarter 1997 (cf.p. 1697);

• 25 August 1997 USSD 319,381.83 for the period of the first quarter 1997 for payments received by SGS (cf. pp. 1695-1696);

That finally Mr Schlegelmilch again billed to Cotecna his own remuneration of 1.25% provided by the contract of 29 June 1994, viz the following payments which he received on his SBS account:

• USD 22,444.50 on 22 May 1995 (cf. pp. 1692-1693);

• USD 93,105.40 on 2 and 4 August 1995 (cf. pp. 1689-1690);

• USD 118,862.15 on 22 may 1995 (cf. pp. 1686-1687);

• USD 99,605.90 on 29 January 1996 (cf. pp. 1683-1684);

• USD 104,221.11. on 12 April 1996 (cf. pp. 1680-1681);

• USD 119,264.01 on 6 August May 1996 (cf. pp. 1677-1678):

• USD 127,310.61 on 26 November 1996 (cf. pp. 1673-1674);

• USD 48,198.56 on 15 April 1997 (cf. pp. 1670-1671);

• USD 79,193.05 on 19 August 1997 (cf. pp. 1667-1668);.

That thus, from the commencement of the contract, the commissions provided by the agreements of 11 March and 29 June 1994 were regularly paid on the following accounts between May 1995 and September 1997 (cf. pp. 1080 to 1109) for a total of:

• BOMER FINANCES INC. USD 8,190.085.00 (eight million one hundred ninety thousand eighty five dollars);

• NASSAM OVERSEAS INC. USD 3,807,338.00 (three million eight hundred seven thousand three hundred thirty eight dollars);

• Mr Jens Schlegelmilch USD 1,538,014.00 (one million five hundred thirty eight thousand and fourteen dollars);

That in effect at the time of the first payment of commissions by SGS, on 24 may 1995, MARISTON SECURITIES INC., which was initially going to be used to receive 6% of the billed amounts, was replaced by the company BOMER FINANCE INC., a company incorporated in the Virgin Islands whose beneficial owners are Mr Asif Ali Zardari and Benazir Bhutto (cf. p. 1662).

That by decision of the shareholders of BOMER on 25 June 1991, Mr Jens Schlegelmilch is the sole Director/Chairman;

That Mr Jens Schlegelmilch had received from Mr Asif Ali Zardari a management mandate for the company BOMER;

That Mr Jens Schlegelmilch acknowledged having started to hold the accounting for account n° 552.343 of the company BOMER at UBS Geneva;

That such accounting mentioned: 50% AAZ – 50% BB;

  Party wise Vote Bank in General Elections 2013

That when interrogated regarding that accounting sheet, Mr Jens Schlegelmilch indicated that he had received instruction from Asif Ali Zardari according to which in case of death, the sum should be divided between his family and the family of his wife;

That the instruction had moreover shown that Benazir Bhutto had a true discretionnary power on the disposition of the BOMER account;

That thus, in August 1997, when her husband Asif Ali Zardari was in prison in Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto acquired an item of jewelry in London for the price of GBP 117,000.00;

The item of jewelry was paid for partly in cash and, for the balance, by a bank payment from the account of BOMER;

That in September 1997, following the discovery of these practices, Hans Fischer was laid off by SGS;

That by judgment of 15 April 1999, the High Court of Lahore (Pakistan) condemned Benazir Bhutto and Asif Ali Zardari to 5 years of imprisonment and USD 8.6 million of fines.

That on 6 April 2001, said judgment was annulled by the Supreme Court of Pakistan which sent the case back to the first judges for a new decision (cf. pp. 949 to 1002).


That by taking useful means to enrich herself or enrich her husband by way of a contract concluded for the accound of the State of which she assumed the supreme direction, Benazir Bhutto was guilty, at least, of acts relating to the unfair management of the public interests which she had the mission of defending;

That nothing effectively permits the conclusion that SGS and Cotecna, for themselves, Hans Fischer and Robert MASSEY, had consented to a sacrifice of more than USD 5 million for the sole purpose of making a donation, without compensation, to the couple Bhutto-Zardari. These payments were without a doubt made in order to obtain the desired contract, in such a manner that SGS and Cotecna therein found their benefit. If Benazir Bhutto had acted fairly, it would not be herself or her husband, but rather the State of Pakistan, which should have benefited, by example in the form of a discount on amounts billed by SGS and Cotecna, from the financial sacrifice that SGS and Cotecna were prepared to make;

That it is moreover not doubtful that the behavior of Benazir Bhutto and her husband is criminally reprehensible in Pakistan, as evidenced by the criminal procedures undertaken in this regard and to which the recent decision by the Supreme Court does not put an end;

That the above finding dispenses the judge to examine whether the behavior of Benazir Bhutto meets the constitutive elements of a crime of passive corruption, within the meaning of article 315a CP and the corresponding provisions of the Pakistani penal code, it being nevertheless remembered that Pakistan has always contended that the contracts concluded by Benazir Bhutto acting for Pakistan with SGS and Cotecna on 29 September 1994 were in violation, by Benazir Bhutto, of the duties of her office;

That until 1 May 2000, the active corruption of foreign public agents was not subject to prosecution inSwitzerland, so that Jens Schlegelmilch cannot be reproached in Geneva for actions relating to such a corruption;

That he cannot either be blamed in Switzerland for the participation in unfair management of the Pakistani public interest or participation in the passive corruption of Benazir Bhutto (ATF 104 IV 239);

That on the other hand, since the unfair management of public interests is a crime and that it does not matter whether this crime was committed abroad (art. 305bis, al. 3 CP), Mr Asif ali Zardari may be reproached inSwitzerland for having.12 committed acts of laundering money arising from the criminal activities of Benazir Bhutto;

That by virtue of the principle of abstract double incrimination, which prevails in doctrine and in jurisprudence, the acts which, in Switzerland, were carried out in order to obstruct the identification of the origin, the discovery or the confiscation of assets of criminal origin are indeed punishable, even if the principal infraction did not occur inSwitzerland (ACKERMANN, Einziehung, organisiertes Verbrechen und Geldwäscherei, vol. I, pp. 453 ss, n. 175 ss and citations);

That under Swiss law, the author of the principal crime may also be prosecuted for money laundering if he carries out actions proscribed by article 305bis CP (ATF 120 IV 329; 122 IV 211; 124 IV 276 = SJ 1999 p. 193);

That a fortiori he who, without being the so-called author of the principal crime, however contributes to its commission, must be prosecuted if, moreover, he participated in the putting into place of a structure having as its purpose that certain assets be paid according to modalities clearly destined to camouflage their real destination;

For this is clearly the case in the present matter: Mrs Benazir Bhutto not only carried out actions so that the agreement between BOMER FINANCE INC. be kept secret, but she also participated in the putting in place of companies which she knew would serve as a screen to camouflage the real recipients of funds which she would cause to be paid by SGS and Cotecna;

That use of “screen” companies is typical of acts punishable under article 305bis CP (ATF 119 IV 245; 124 IV 276 = SJ 1999 p. 193; CASSANI, Commentaire du droit penal suisse, vol. 9, pp. 72 ss, n. 31 ss; CORBOZ, Les principales infractions, vol. II, p. 312, n. 25);

The behavior covered by article 305 bis CP is only punishable if the author knew or should have known that the estate assets which he helped to conceal came from a crime;

That this subjective element is also met in the present case, notwithstanding the silence of Mrs Benazir Bhutto. Since:

• It is not necessary that the author knew -or should have known- with precision from which precise principal infraction came the assets in question, nor that he knew the author of this infraction: it suffices that the author had envisaged or accepted that these assets came from a behavior capable of a large sanction, or that they served as remuneration of such behavior (CASSANI, op. Cit., p. 8, n. 51);

• Mrs Benazir Bhutto knew that the “bribes” paid by SGS and Cotecna were destined for her and her husband;

• The precautions taken by Mr Asif Ali Zardari in concert with Mr Jens Schlegelmilch in order to keep the concluded agreement secret clearly demonstrate that he was aware of its illicit character;

That in summary, Mrs Benazir 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 in the sole private interest of her family at the cost of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan;

That, in order to fix a penalty, the Investigating Magistrate has applied the criteria of article 63 CPS;

That the accused fulfills the objective and subjective conditions for the granting of a measure of probation, the Judge of Investigation esteeming that such a measure would be of such a nature to deter her from committing new infractions;

That the laundered assets may be confiscated provided that they are still in the possession of the launderer. If not, the confiscation may only bear on the consideration obtained by the author in remuneration for the committed infractions. If the assets which served as this remuneration are no longer available, notably because they have been mixed with the estate of the author, the confiscation may be replaced by the payment of a compensatory claim (art. 59. ch.1 and 2 CP; ATF O. of 19.2.2001 cons. 3c, n° 6S.667/2001; ATF 126 I 197 cons. 3c. bb; 122 IV 365= SJ 1999 I 419-420; CASSANI, “Le blanchiment d’ argent, un crime sans victime ?”; in Wirtschaft und Strafrecht, Zürich 2001, p. 498-499);

That the file has established that Mrs Benazir Bhutto and her husband Asif Ali Zardari were paid by SGS and Cotecna in connection with the inspection contracts (preshipment inspection of goods) as a result of their unfair management of the public interests of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, and laundered in concert with Mr Jens Schlegelmilch and her husband in Swiss banks:

• USD 8,190,085.00 on the account of BOMER FINANCE INC. at UBS Geneva;

• USD 3,807,338.00 on the account of NASSAM OVERSEAS INC. at BARCLAYS Geneva;

being in total USD 11,997,423.00 (eleven million nine hundred ninety seven four hundred twenty three dollars);

That Mrs Benazir Bhutto will be condemned to reimburse jointly with her husband Mr Asif Ali Zardari the proceed of the unfair management of the public interests of the Republic of Pakistan laundered in Switzerland, being USD 11,997,423.00 (eleven million nine hundred ninety seven four hundred twenty three dollars);

That has first to be ordered the confiscation of the assets on the following accounts:

• USD 2,484,000.00 on the account of BOMER FINANCE INC. at UBS Geneva;

• USD 3,748,373.00 on the account of NASSAM OVERSEAS INC at Barclays Geneva;

That there is also reason to order the confiscation of amounts which were transferred from BOMER FINANCE INC. to the account of HOSPITAL MIDDLE EAST INC. at UBS Geneva, being USD 5,502.292.00.;

That these confiscated amounts represent a sum of USD 11,734,665.00.

That the amounts frozen do not fully cover the sum to be reimbursed; therefore, Mrs. Benazir Bhutto shall be condemned, jointly with Mr Asif Ali Zardari, to the payment of the balance by way of a compensatory claim in the amount of USD 262,758.00, i.e. in Swiss francs, at the exchange rate 1.324, CHF 347,892.00.

That the Islamic Republic of Pakistan having been recognized the quality as civil plaintiff and being the victim of the actions of Mr Jens Schlegelmilch, it is right to order the restitution of the confiscated amounts and compensatory claim to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan;

That, for the remainder, Mrs Benazir Bhutto shall be condemned to a participation of one third of the costs of the procedure which amount to CHF 23,000.00, the fee being fixed at Fr. 500.00.


Given in law articles 36, 41.1, 48, 50.2, 63, 68, 69, 305bis CPS; articles 218 and following CPPG;


Finds Mrs Benazir Bhutto, born in 1953, guilty of participation in money laundering, infraction under article 305bis paragraph 1 CP;

Sentences her to 180 days of imprisonment.

Grants her the benefit of probation with a period of testing of three years.

Orders the confiscation of the goods on the following accounts:

• USD 2,484,000.00 on the account of BOMER FINANCE INC. with UBS Geneva;

• USD 3,748,373.00 on the account of NASSAM OVERSEAS INC with Barclays Geneva;

• USD 5,502,292.00 on the account of HOSPITAL MIDDLE EAST INC. with UBS Geneva;

And orders the restitution thereof to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan;.

Sentences Mrs. Benazir Bhutto, jointly with Mr Asif Ali Zardari, to the payment to the Islamic Republic of Pakistanof CHF 347,892.00 as a compensatory claim;

Orders the forfeiture of the necklace acquired by Mrs. Benazir Bhutto in London and seized in Geneva;

Orders the restitution of the necklace to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Also condemns her to a participation in one third of the CHF 23,000.00 costs of the procedure, i.e. to CHF 8,166.00, including a fee of CHF 500.00.

Notifies the present sentencing order:

• to the condemned Mr Mrs Benazir Bhutto, being for her at his counsel Dominique PONCET, Esq., P.O. Box 5715, 1211 Geneva 11

• to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, being for it at its counsel Jacques PYTHON, Esq., rue Massot 9, 1206 Geneva

• to UBS SA, P.O. Box 2600, 1211 Geneva 2

• to Barclays Bank (Suisse) SA, legal department, P.O. Box 3941, 1211 Geneva 3

The clerk

Patricia CHRISTEN The Investigating Magistrate

Daniel DEVAUD.


This sentencing order is susceptible to OPPOSITION by the parties within a period of FOURTEEN DAYS from its notification by simple written declaration without cause addressed to the Greffe du Tribunal de Police, P.O. Box 3715, 1211 GENEVE 3.

The opposition of a civil party may only be in regard to a civil judgment. The General Attorney, in lieu of opposition, may request during the same period of fourteen days, the transmission of the file to the competent jurisdiction for reasons of prosecution.

In the absence of opposition, the ordinance of condemnation becomes FINAL and ENFORCEABLE (art. 218 C and 370 CPP).

The period for opposition and the opposition stay the procedure until a decision is rendered on the opposition, unless the law provides otherwise (art. 369, paragraph 2 CPP).

For persons already imprisoned without warrant, the ordinance condemns them to a firm sentence taking place of the warrant and is effective as long as the condemnation has not become definitive and executory, under reserve of a provisional liberation in conformity with the provisions of articles 151 to 163 8art. 369, paragraph 3 CPP).



(according to the list of procedural costs)

Emolument CHF 500.00

Expenses CHF 7,666.00

Emoluments and

costs of the


administration CHF


Found the present

state of costs

at CHF 8,166.00



(art. 6 of regulation on tariffs of costs and expenses in criminal matters)

The parties, or if it is condemned, the plaintiff, may oppose the taxation by the state of costs of the State or the taxation of costs of a party within a period of THIRTY DAYS from the notification of the decision of condemnation of costs or expenses.

Opposition is made by written request addressed to the criminal section of the Cour de Justice, which rules in last resort.

N.B.: The service of contraventions shall send you a payment slip when this ordinance of condemnation becomes definitive and executory.



Asif Zardari lays claim to 4-mn-pound UK estate

LONDON: Benazir Bhutto’s husband, or Pakistan‘s so- called Mr Ten Per Cent, has suddenly laid claim to a £4-million property in Surrey, in what many believe to be a neat attempt to call Islamabad’s bluff about his ill-gotten fortune.


Asif Ali Zardari’s claim to the plush, neo-Tudor, nine-bedroom pile in England comes after eight years of strenuously denying he ever bought it and that too from the proceeds of corruption.

His London laywer John Aycock dismisses fears the abrupt U-turn will have a bad “political fallout” in Pakistan, where the media mockingly calls the property the Bhutto- Zardari Surrey Palace.

Bhutto has always claimed to know nothing about the 365-acre property and its purchase. Pakistan‘s then High Commissioner in London, Wajid Shams ul-Hasan, always denied all knowledge of the transactions to do with the house and its imported antique accoutrements.

Sources close to the Bhuttos told TNN, Zardari had legally been advised his claim to be a legal beneficiary to Rockwood Estate was likely to help him in every way, even as he serves a prison term for corruption.

The Pakistan government had been put on the back foot, the sources said.