(The declarations of income and assets w the National Assembly show a similar picture] OTHER MATERIAL BACTS AND POSSIBLE DEFENCES TO THE CLAIM 120, 124 122. 123, 124 128. As E have said, Mr Zardari and others have been charged with the murder of Ms Bhutto’s brother, Mr Murtaza Bhutw. Mr Zardari is in peison awaiting trial. A copy of the indictment is at page{ ‘Criminal charges have bees brought against 10 individuals, including Mr Zardari, Mr Hasan and Mr Pasha for Customs irregularities relating w the two consignments of furniture. Botts Mr Hasan (for medical treatment) and Mr Pasha are currently in the United Kingdom. Pakistan ‘bas no extradition treaty with the United Kingdom. Since allegations first appeared that Me Zardari was guilty of corruption, he has consistently Genied this. He will polat to the fact that after his wife's frst administration charges were ‘brought by x government headed by Me Newz Sharif, which were subsequently dropped tor lack of evidence (although their abandonment coincided with his wite's second adsninistcation) He will further point out thar no charges for corruption have yet beea brought against him in Pakistan, notwithstanding the fact that his wite was dismissed from office almost a year ago {to be confirmed] Ms Bhuto, « politician with an international reputation, has consistently denied that she or her husband were ialved in any corrupt activities, of profit illegally from her position in any way, They will suggest that the curren proceedings are part of a conspiracy brought by the Prescat Government of Pakistan, who are their political opponents, in conjunction with the various criminal proceedings (a Pakistan against Mr Zardari for political advantage. They will also rely upom the fact that the Chairman of Ehtesab, Senator Saif Ur Rehauan, is also the subject of allegations of corruption, and that Ehtesab is not being used in 2 similar manner against merabers of other political partes including Mr Sharif’s Muslim League A copy of an aicle from Time Magazine raising such allegations is a page { J. The fact is that Investigations and if appropriate proceadings will be taken against all wrongdvers ierespactive of political allegiance. However the current case is the largest by far and hus heen given priority. ‘After the dissolution of Parliament and before fresh elactions were held, the respected television journalist Jane Corbyn made the Assignment Programume for the MUC (at page {| })._ Io WreauaLsos © u a126. nz. 128. 129, 130, imerviews on that programme both Me Zardari and Ms Bhutto deay any involvement in corruption, or any connectioa wn the Rockwood Estate. Ms Bhutio said “I have never in my life bean to Rockwood, I have never seca an estate agent. § don’t know what this Rockwood thing is" Whea Mr Zardari was questioned about this he said “I've never been 19 Surrey, if 1 have lot ‘them prove it. IC's not impossible lo prove, lt them prove it”. When asked about the shipping documents for the furniture he sald “There are no shipping documems, were are documents relating to the shipping of furniture w Exgland ... from my house in Pakistan. There is no house in England”. When the first press articles appeared suggesting the real owners of Rockwood were Zardari and Bhutto, threats of defamation proceedings were made by a firm of London solicitors, Davenport Lyons, although these have never been proceeded with, Ms Bhutto will say that she comes from a wealthy family and it is anticipsted that Mr Zardari will make 2 similar statement. This would support a case that their day w day expenditure sould have been funded by their families. However, it does not appear w be their case that ither of their families acquired Rockwood, Recently, there has been a considerable mumber of press reports following the freezing of the accounis in Switzerland, Many of these are repetitive, ‘The text of the major items appearing in[ ] between § October ani {20} October 1997 are at pages). Ms Hhutto has repeated her denials of any wrongdoing and has claimad thas the Government is pursuing a vendess against her. In particular, she denies that she or her family had siphoned monies into Swiss Dank accounts, It is mot clear whether she admits or denies having Swiss bank accounts ‘Mr Bhutto also filed 2 petition in the Pakistan High Court on { | asking the Court to order the Ehtessb Cell wo disclose to her the documents it has gathered 4s past of iss investigations, ‘This request was (refused) by the Court on [ IL ASSETS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION 131 ‘On the basis of the information set out in this affidavit the Plaintiff believes thar Mr Zardari, ‘Ms Bhutto and Nusrat Bhutw have extremely substantial assets held outside Pakistan, the identification and tracing of which will be impossible without the assistance of the Couns, pegatuausacn 9 -3-132. On the basis of the evidence set out in this affidavit | believe that Asif Zardari, Benazir Bhutto andlor Nusrat Bhuuwo are the ultimate beneficial owners of the following ascets in the (i) the Rockwood Estate; 2) Plat 26, Palace Mansions, Logon W14; 133. In addition, | believe they will bave bank accounts at English banks. The Swiss documents, referred w at paragraphs | ** }, demonstrate transfers into English bank accoums in the name of Mr Zardari, MR HOWARD 134. Mr Howard was admiued 2s a solicitor in 198). The Law Society Records Department have advised the Plaintiffs’ solicitors that Mr Howard was 2 partner at Lawrence Jones froin about August 1991 until about October 1995. It appears that Mr Howard left the firm of Lawrence Jones i about the time that the purchase of the Rockwood Estate was completed. 135, Mr Howard is sow practising on his own account and is believed w represent the interests of Mr Zardari and/or the Bhutw fsnily interests in England. For example, a recent Pakistan ‘Telecom log for Bilawal House shows a telephone call on { | September 1997 from Clifton House to Mr Howard's office (page). The Law Society Records Department have informed the Piainlifs’ solicitors tha Mr Howard's firm, Richard Howard anal Co, practice frm premises at 11 Oki Square, Lincoins ina, where Mr Howard is in partnership with a Mr § P Levine, and at 60 St Aldyates, Oxford, where Mr Howard is a sole practitioner. 136. Mr Howard is alto a director of Rockwood Farm and Stud Limited ("RFS") RES was incorporated by Mr Howard in September 1995. The shareholder of RFS is Euroinvest Nominees, a company of which Mr Howard is also a director. The other disecior uf RES is 4 Joba Bancroft, who is also a director of Horsewalkers Limited, mentioned at paragraph ——_ above 137. Although the Plaintiff does not advance any charge of wrongdoing against Mr Howard, number of factors suggest he has been imolved is wansactions which form part of the Defendants’ fraudulent scheme: Mune 3(1) he was 2 partner in Lawrence Janes, who undertook the conveyancing of Rackwood, when it was sold in 1995; (2) his office is the registered address for [HMER}; GB) he is a director of RFS; (4) the telephone log (at page ) indicates that as recently a September (997 wlephune calls were made from Clifton House, Ms Bhuno’s residence ia Karachi, wo Mr Howard's utfice and & Gx sent from Clifton House t Lawrence Jones 138. Mr Howard is the ouly professional person within the jurisdiction who may be expected wo have hhad iniormation or documents which will reveal the source of fuads used to acquire the Rockwood Estale, the natural persons who gave instructions for its purchase and ts truc Deneficial ownership. The Maintifls therefore seeks appropriate discovery orders against him OTHER INTENDED PROCEEDINGS 139. As | stated at paragraph [ ] above, the State intends te commence civil proceedings in Pakistan ‘a8 soon as reasonably practicable after the application has been made io the English Court. 140. It is intended that an application will be made, conemporaneously with this application, to the High Court in the Isle of Man seeking interim restraint and information orders against the ur Isle of Man companies interested in Rockwood, and the registered shareboluers of such companies. 14t, (Jersey) 142, [Switzerland - update} 143. | have dealt at paragraph [| above with the intended relevant criminal proceedings ia Pakistan ORDERS SOUGHT 144. Ehave been advised of the general effect of the orders to be sought frum the English court. rota nn145. I request the English Court 0 make ail appropriate interim restraint and discovery orders to ‘enable the State of Pakistan w trace and preserve the proceads of the serious frauds which have been committed against it. Unless this Court, and Courts in other jurisdictions, assist it will prove practically impossible for the State w recover the very substantial bribes which appear w have been paid and concealed through a web of offshore companies 146, ‘The State will take all measures available t under its law [application for domestic mareve?) to seek the assistance of the Pakistan courts w wace and recover the proceeds of fraud, but the orders of the Pakistan court may 6 practice prove of little effect against the offshore companies, and the wivisers wo those companies 147. I have the authority of the Goverament 10 offer to the English Court » cross-undertaking in damages on the usual terms 148. [Undertaking w issue procendings, etc ] reomnenamen 6 35-{courT) {NO:} BETWEEN: (1) THE STATE OF PAKISTAN (@) AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK (2) BENAZIR BHUTTO (2) ASIF ALI ZARDARI (8) NUSRAT BHUTTO: (4) AMER LODHD (8) JENS SCHLEGELMILCH (6) BOMER FINANCE INC (7) MARISTON SECURITIES INC (8) MARLETON BUSINESS SA (9) CAPRICORN TRADING SA (10) NASSAM OVERSEAS INC (UD DARGAL ASSOCIATED SA 112) ROMINA PROPERTIES LIMITED] 103) OLTON CONSOLIDATED LIMITED} {(14) WINKPORD FARM LIMITED} (GS) PARSONAGE FARM LIMITED} PLAINT i ‘The Plaintiffs Jt The Plaintifis wre the State of Pakistan and a corporation wholly owned by the State of Pakistan, wumeonaeis7 @ ote tt 5555 ws cede ‘iho2 ‘The Defendants 2.1 The First Defendant was the Prime Minister of the Government of the Piest Plainsiff from | |} 1988 w November 1990 and from November 1993 w November 1996. 2.2 The Second Defendant is the bushand of the First Defendant, The Second Defendant was the Minster fos the Environment and Economic Development of the Goverament of the First Plaintiff from [ lw November 1996. 2.3 ‘The Thind Defendant is the mother of the First Defendant. 24 ‘The Fourth Defendam is the brother of the First Plaintiff"; former ambassador t the USA and an agent and/or ussociate of the First and/or Second Defendass, 2S The Fifth Defendant was at all material times the agent of the Furst and/or ‘Second and/or Thied and/or Fourth Defendants. 26 The Sixth w Eleventh Defendants are companies incorporated in the British ‘Virgin Islands by or on the instructions of the Fifth Defendant on behalf of the First and/or Second and/or Third and/or Fourth Defendants and which are ‘owned and/or controlled by the First and/or Second and/or Thind and/or Fourth Defeodaats or in which the First and/or Second and/or Third and/or Fourth Defendants are interested, 2.7 The TWwelfts to Fitteeath Defendants are companics incorporated in the Iste ‘of Man which are owned and/or controlled by the First and/or Second Defendants or in which the First and/oc Second Defendams are interested 3 Bribes or Secret Conunissions 3.1 Whilst members of the Government of the First Plaintiff as aforesaid, the First and Second Defendants owed fiduciary duties to the First Plaintiff, and to its whoily owned corporations. including the Second Plaisiiff, including fiduciary duties not to accept or arrange for any other person to receive any Deibes o¢ secret commissions in respect of business transacted or w be pammaests ae ae oot sys te fait ae tiees en MUAornaaon o 44 a2 43 a4 transacted ox which aight ia the future be transacted between any af the Plalncitis and any third party. 4a breach of the said fiduciary duties, between [ } anf 1 the First and/or Second Defendants acting by thesuselves, alternatively ‘trough the Fourth and/or Fifth Defendants, accepted andior arranged for ‘other persons (locluding the Sixth to Eleventh Defendants) to receive bribes and/or secret commissions frum third parties wansacting business with the Ptaloulffs or one or elther of them. ‘The said breaches of fiductary duty by the First and/or Second Defendants were procured and/or aided and/or abetted by the Thind w Pleventh Defendants and by the First and Second Defendants (of each other). Further ‘or in the alternative the Thiad to Eleventh Defendants conspired with the First andor Second Defendants and the First and Second Defendants conspired with each other to breach the said fiduciary duties, Further or ia the further alternative, the Third © Eteveath Defendaras dishonestly assisted the First andior Second Defeadanis and the First and Second Defendants dishonestly assisted cach other w breach the said fiduciary duties. Further or in dhe further alternative, the Defendants have received asseds int the knowledge thar the same had been received, or emanated from monies received, in breach of the said fiduciary duties. The details of the abd aleyations of bribes andior secret commissions made in paragraph 4.1 sbove, and of the allegations of complicity in the said breaches of fiduciary duty made in paragraph 4.2 above, which the Plaintitts ase currently able w give appear in paragraphs 5 t 26 below. The Plaintiffs reserve the right w supplement the said details. In the premises, the Defendants’ bold upon trust for the Plaintiffs and/or are liable w account w the Plaintiffs for all bribes and/or secret commissions and all money derived from and all assets acquired disectly or indirectly with such bribes and/or secret cominissions, Bomer Finance Inc Sa ‘The Sixth Defendant (“Bomer*) was incorporated in the British Virgin Islands ‘on 25 April 1991 by the Fifth Defendant on behalf of the First and/or Second Defendants. At a meeting of the shareholders of Bomer held on 25 june