Petitioner's lawyer conclude arguments in PTI Funding Case.

ISLAMABAD -- Petitioner's counsel in PTI funding case in his arguments on Monday said that all accounts were opened on the party's instructions and had to made public under Rule 5.

A three-member panel of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) headed by Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Sikandar Sultan Raja heard the case today.

Counsel Ahmad Hassan said that Article 5 (i) was not read properly, ' foreign nationals and companies are out of the parameters of the law. PTI was submitting bank statements in the past but now they are unaware', counsel said. 'The impression was created that we have provided each thing to the election commission,' counsel said.

'The scrutiny committee got all details from a bank,' he argued.

'The PTI made a massive cover up. A company LLC PTI was established in the United States. Our law prohibits such companies, it is unlawful to establish a company for funding,' Ahmad Hassan argued.

'You are saying the companies could not be established, then what was the need,' CEC questioned. 'They said it was compulsion for them to establish a company in the US,' the CEC further said.

'Opening a company in the US was either their ignorance or incompetence,' counsel said. 'Misappropriation of money could be an objective, but it is the PTI that have to give the answer,' petitioner's lawyer argued.

'They should be made accountable for misstatement to the election commission,' he said. 'It was easier for the scrutiny committee to trace who is a Pakistani citizen and who is not.'

'PTI was submitting their bank statement in 2002,' counsel said. 'The PTI has now also given thorough details of its finances,' CEC stated. 'The record was given on the demand of the scrutiny committee,' counsel said.

'The PTI was bound to disclose all its accounts in country or in the overseas, ' lawyer said. 'There was no need to establish a company for funding under the law in overseas,' he said.

'What benefit you think the PTI achieved by setting up a company,' CEC questioned. 'Either it was their incompetence or for misappropriation of the money,' the counsel replied. 'Constituting a company in America is illegal under the national law,' he said. 'The PTI had earlier made false statements before the court and now in the supreme court,' he said.

'The scrutiny committee should have sent the donors names to the NADRA for identification.'You have already presented your objections on the scrutiny committee in your arguments,' CEC said.

'What will be...