- Imran Ali Yousaf’s solicitor says defamation which means trial’s end result was vindication of his consumer’s declare
- There may be proof out there of Yousaf not understanding the supply of cash The Mail claims he acquired, he says
- He says allegations have been fully unfaithful and have been designed to malign, harass and humiliate Yousaf
LONDON: Shahbaz Sharif’s son-in-law Imran Ali Yousaf’s solicitor has stated that the defamation which means trial end result was a vindication of his consumer’s declare in opposition to the Related Newspapers Ltd’s (ANL) 2019 article that blamed him for money-laundering and corruption.
Barrister Waheed-ur-Rehman Miah, whose agency represents Imran Ali Yousaf, stated that Mail on Sunday had claimed that his consumer acquired £1 million, which he knew have been embezzled from funds of Pakistan’s Earthquake Aid and Reconstruction Authority (ERRA).
Nevertheless, “there is evidence available of Yousaf not knowing” the origin of funds and had no relation with Ikram Naveed, the previous ERRA government.
Learn extra: Shahbaz Sharif scores spherical one victory in defamation combat with Day by day Mail
Barrister Waheed stated that Mail On-line and Mail On Sunday stated that Yousaf was a beneficiary of thousands and thousands of kilos of laundered cash as a part of Shahbaz Sharif’s wider household, however in court docket, Mail’s lawyer advised the choose that the paper didn’t accuse Yousaf of money-laundering. The choose rejected the publication’s arguments.
“The fact Justice Matthew Nickin determined that Yousaf has been defamed at the highest level, in ERRA part, and defamed at the second-highest level in the overall corruption allegations, is proof that Daily Mail’s arguments were found to be insufficient that it didn’t accuse him of corruption,” he said.
The solicitor maintained that the allegations “were completely untrue and were designed to malign, harass and humiliate Yousaf”.
Read more: Daily Mail pays millions in damages for defamatory article targeting British-Pakistani man
“The judgment on the meaning of the defamatory article in favour of Yousaf is the first step towards to full vindication of Yousaf’s claim against the Daily Mail newspaper and compensation for the damage to his reputation.”
Moreover, he said that the judge had set the “highest standard of proof” for the ANL to show that Yousaf did what he had been accused of — “the fact is Mail has no proof [as] the paper was fed a false story to target [my cliient] because he’s linked with a high profile political family.”
Barrister Waheed stated David Rose claimed that Yousaf was a “right-hand man” of Naveed, however he has no proof as a result of his consumer didn’t know who the person was.
Learn extra: British-Pakistani cage fighter and spouse win defamation case in UK
He stated that Naveed, the previous finance director of ERRA, struck a plea discount take care of Pakistani authorities and admitted in 2018 that he stole cash from ERRA’s account — that had £54 million from the UK’s Division for Worldwide Growth (DFID) — however that had nothing to do with Yousaf.
Yousuf is looking for greater than half 1,000,000 kilos in damages from the ANL in addition to an injunction to get the article taken down and stop any additional publication. The Day by day Mail publishers have stated that the publication stands by its story and the declare might be defended vigorously.