Panamagate's hearing resumed in Supreme Court, today. The five member bench delved into the matter regarding the steps that had been taken by NAB and FBR following the matter which surfaced in the previous year.

FBR Chairman Muhammad Irshad told the court that notices were issued to 343 individuals following the Panama Papers leaks. Irshad informed the court that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's sons Hasan and Hussain Nawaz as well as his daughter Maryam had responded to the notices issued to them by the bureau in November 2016.

"The owners of 39 companies are not Pakistani residents and 59 people denied ownership of offshore companies," said the chairman as he elaborated on the responses of the premier's children, the chairman told the court that Maryam had denied having property abroad and being the owner of any off-shore company.

During the previous proceedings, Advocate Salman Akram Raja, representing Hasan and Hussain Nawaz, informed the court that London flats had rested with Maryam for six months — between February and July 2006. In that period, Raja told the court, a trust deed was executed between Maryam and Hussain in February 2006, following which she acted as a trustee for her brother.

The court inquired whether her response mentioned that she was the trustee of four flats located in London's upscale Park Lane neighbourhood. The chairman responded that she did not.

Irshad further told the court that in a response submitted to the FBR, Hussain Nawaz had stated that he had resided in Saudi Arabia since 2000.

Responding to which, Justice Gulzar angrily asked the chairman if he had closed Hussain's file after the premier's son submitted his response.  Justice Khosa, who presides over the bench, asked  "What steps did you take after receiving the responses?" Similar responses were accounted from the other judges when the chairman's responded that the FBR was "verifying all the information provided by the respondents".

"It seems that you may need 30 years to verify those documents," Justice Gulzar remarked. Further, Justice Saeed said  "You have wasted a year doing a task that should have taken hours."

The bench was also disappointed by NAB's position in the court.  "It is saddening to hear NAB's position," said Justice Gulzar.

"NAB's position has remained that Panama [Papers case] does not come within its jurisdiction. Is this NAB's position that because no regulator approached them, investigations were not undertaken against off-shore companies?" Justice Saeed asked after Chaudhry explained that the bureau start investigative action when it is approached by a regulator.

NAB Chairman, Qamar Zaman Chaudhry, said the bureau "is aware of its responsibilities."

"Laws concerning the NAB give it the authority to undertake investigations," Justice Khosa told the chairman.

"If NAB does not have the authority to investigate, who does?" Justice Ijazul Hassan asked rhetorically.

When Justice Khosa inquired about NAB's actions regarding bank accounts and monetary transactions, the chairman sought to assure the court that "investigations will be undertaken".

"NAB should act as the country's regulator," Justice Gulzar said.

Though, the FBR counsel then accepted before the court that no such immediate steps were taken as he argued in order to defend his position that separate laws and institutions are available for money laundering cases. Justice Gulzar replied in iresome manner that "So in other words, what you are saying is that the FBR did not take any steps regarding money laundering."