Ikhwanweb :: The Muslim Brotherhood Official English Website

Tue109 2018

Last update19:14 PM GMT

Back to Homepage
Font Size : 12 point 14 point 16 point 18 point
:: Archive > Military Tribunal
Grave Violations in Financial Report of Al-Shater’s Military Case
Grave Violations in Financial Report of Al-Shater’s Military Case
The Military Court trying 40 Muslim Brotherhood (MB) leaders topped by Khairat Al-Shater the second deputy chairman of the MB, has been hit be a curse that overshadowed all its evidences. The bill of indictment is based on three main pillars: The testimony of officer Atef Al Husseini,
Thursday, August 30,2007 05:44
by Abdul Moneim Mahmoud IkhwanWeb
The Military Court trying 40 Muslim Brotherhood (MB) leaders topped by Khairat Al-Shater the second deputy chairman of the MB, has been hit be a curse that overshadowed all its evidences. The bill of indictment is based on three main pillars: The testimony of officer Atef Al Husseini, a State Security Investigation (SSI) officer, the only prosecution witness in the case whose testimony in the fourth session was clearly reflected his confusion and that he knows nothing about the investigation report which he edited. This forced him to add a fake name to be a mediator between Al Shater and Yousof Nada, a Swiss-based defendant in the same case. The second pillar is the items sequestered during the detentions. This is because the military prosecution proved concluded that the items sized from the house of the second defendant Hassan Malek, were stolen. The third pillar is the financial report which is expected to be submitted as an evidence on the money laundry crime. Reading the financial report issued by the illicit gain committee of the Ministry of Justice about Khairat Al-Shater"s companies, and comparing it with the texts of money laundry law no. 80 of the year 2002, the one can see the serious mistakes and grave violations committed in order to change the course of justice.
 
The Higher State Security Prosecution committed flagrant violations to law. The money laundry law no. 80 of the year 2002 stipulates that the money laundry unit in the central bank is the one authorized to receives notices from financial institutions regarding any suspected money laundry crime. If investigations proved that there are indications that there is a crime, the unit notifies the public prosecution.
 
What happened was that the Higher State Security Prosecution based its decisions on groundless testimonies and a memo submitted by SSI lieutenant colonel Atef Al Husseini, to change the course of the case after a long period of detention. To reinforce its stance, the state security prosecution did not resort to the authorized service but it resorted to the illicit gain administration in the Justice Ministry.
 
The unauthorized illicit gain administration prepared the financial report about the companies in a clear violation to the money laundry law and its executive regulation.
 
This measure nullifies all previous measures of arrests, searches and accusations because there is no evidence to prove that a money laundry crime has been committed. The prosecution based its decision of the detention and search. Logically speaking, the evidence does not come after the accusation.
 
The evidence is sought after holding investigations and check up statements issued by competent financial institutions. However, the state security prosecution formed an incompetent technical committee to fabricate an evidence.Therefore, whatever the results of this committee, it can not be used as evidence to charges.
 
The prosecution committed another violation when it ordered companies closed although they are nominal legal entities that has financial statements which are independent from statements of the partners as they have their independent administrations.
The state security prosecution issued its orders of searching and shutting down the companies in violation to law. Another number of companies which aren’t included in the case have been shut down as well.
 
The mistakes committed by the Higher State Security Prosecution included its demand for freezing assets of the MB leaders and their wives and underage children. When the suit was referred to justice, the attorney general chose the fourth circuit in the Criminal Court headed by judge Adel Abdul Salam Gomaah who is notoriously well known for his politically motivated rulings. He was the judge who sent to prison Magdi Hussein, Saadudine Ibrahim, Ayman Nour and Sherif Al Filali. His name was also mentioned in the complaint submitted by the former adviser of the Minister of Agriculture in the incident of offering 90000 pounds bribe to judge Gomaah.
 
Judge Adel Abdul Salam Gomaah upheld the decision of freezing the assets of the defendants, their wives and children, although the ruling lacked any legal reason for issuing it.
 
The case was referred to the military justice and in last June 3rd, session, the circuit chief justice declared that the financial report of the committee formed by the prosecution has been sent to him. The report emerged on June, 23rd, 2007, 5 months after directing the charge!!! And 3 months after referring the case the military justice on February, 5th, 2007. The prosecution is supposed to have fully completed its investigations before the referral to justice because it will be the genera prosecutor, an opponent in the case. This is actually one of the most grave violations. This because the accused in this case where detained, their assets were frozen and their companies were shut down before the emergence of any bill of indictment and even this newly emerged evidence add nothing to the case.
 
The financial report clearly confirms that there is no specific incident, behavior or financial action that may prove that any of these frozen companies received donations or contributions from the Muslim Brotherhood group. The report mentioned only some notes that are totally divorced from the money laundry, including for example that some companies reduced their capital or that they didn’t register their accounts in official books although this is legal because such companies are owned by persons and individual enterprises. As for the claim that some companies reduced their capital although their annual dealings are more than this, its is usually implemented in all businesses.
 
The report claims also that joint stock companies are a means for hiding owners of the money which is not right. It is legally accepted in the market that any one who can’t invest his money for himself can make a joint venture with others and that one of them runs the company and all its works using his name as if he is working for himself and he sells and inks deal. At the end of every year, profits and losses are distributed among partners. This person carries out all commitments related to the business, including taxes. Therefore, the charge of tax evasion or hiding profits is totally groundless. There are even less on year old companies which accused of tax evasion by report although they are still exempted from taxes.
 
The committee did not interrogated the defendants who weren’t allowed to see the papers claimed by this committee to say whether they are true or they need more papers that may show the real and correct legal status.
 
The idea of the "invisible partner" was dotted in the financial report whose writers tended to overblow the capitals of the accused, specially Khairat Al-Shater and Hassan Malik. The report tended to consider the headquarters of companies and exhibitions that the two partners rent as fixed assets which are owned by them. Also, the report focused on the companies in which both partners have stakes, specially those of persons not having accounting books. The report added to the property of both partners the companies that stopped their activities or those that have been sold off, given that the values of such soled off companies have been put in other companies.
 
What raises eyebrows is that the report added companies whose names were only found in papers of these companies, considering only mentioning these companies as a proof that there is a an invisible partner in these companies.
 
All this financial report is based on guessing and unjust accusations to the extent that it described one of the partners name as:" He is seemingly a member in an outlawed group".
 
The military court is expected to dismiss all this financial report after it has been confirmed to all that the State Security Investigations police stole and cheated in the sequestered items.

Posted in Military Tribunal , MB News , Prisoners of Conscience  
Add Comment Send to Friend Print
Related Articles
Al Shater’s Military Trial Adjourned Until next Sunday
Military Tribunal Resumes Amid Worries about Al Shater’s Health
Brotherhood military trial continues despite El Shater health concerns
Al-Shater’s Military Court Adjourned till next Wednesday
Poor Medical Care Takes Toll on El Shater’s Health
Al Shater’s Military Trial Adjourned Until next Tuesday
Al-Shater’s Military Trial Adjourned till Next Tuesday
AL Shater’s Trial postponed to 19 August
Khairat Al Shater I Didn’t Meet
Legal, Illegal in Wealth of Khairat Al Shater, Ahmed Ezz
Second Time: Criminal Court Acquits Al Shater, 11 Others
Al Shater’s Defence: Ball Now In Mubarak’s Court
El-Shater: We Do Not Promote An Anti Western Agenda
Al Shater Appeals to Palestinian Factions To End Violence
More Arrests Among MB Members, Al-Shater’s Health Deteriorates