Abbasi submits reply regarding nature of beneficial interest in trust relationship in Khan, Tareen’s disqualificition case

ISLAMABAD, Nov 21 (APP):Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N) leader Hanif Abbasi on Tuesday filed before the Supreme Court a
written response pertaining to the nature of a beneficial interest in trust relationships.
On Nov 15, a three-member bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice Saqib Nisar and comprising
Justice Faisal Arab and Justice Umar Ata Bandial had concluded hearing a
petition filed by Abbasi against Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran
Khan and party’s secretary-general Jahangir Tareen seeking the disqualification
of the two PTI leaders.
The response submitted by Abbasi stated that, according to Black’s Law Dictionary, a trust should be
considered to be an asset.
It further identifies a bare trust which has a single beneficiary as one in which the beneficiary has
an identifiable, equitable interest in some property. The response states that
the case against Imran involves a bare trust.
It argues that Imran’s offshore company, Niazi Services Limited, operated on his instructions and it
therefore cannot be said that the PTI chief is not the owner of the company.
The response also states that the case concerning Tareen involves a discretionary trust where although
the beneficiary has an interest in the trust [sic] there is no commitment on the part of the trustee to confer on him the benefit of any defined property.
“It is within the discretion of the trustee as to who, one or more, of the beneficiaries shall
have the benefit of the trust property.”
“Nevertheless, a beneficiary under a discretionary trust has an interest to be considered as a
potential recipient of benefit under the trust and a right to have his interest protected by the court of equity,” the response states.
“The whole class of beneficial beneficiaries, under a discretionary trust, can call upon the
trustee to surrender the property according to the instructions of the beneficiaries.”
The response states that Tareen therefore cannot refuse ownership of a trust through which he had bought
property in Britain.
The response stated that anything that can be disposed of for value is, by definition, an asset.
“Therefore, in the cases of Imran Khan Niazi and Jahangir Tareen, their interest in the trust
property was in the nature of a proprietary interest that could be disposed of,and constituted as an asset,” it added.
Abbasi’s response maintains that Tareen and Imran did not disclose the trust and the offshore
company, respectively, in their nomination papers.