ABDUL KARIM vs DIRECTOR GENERAL, FIA S — 2025 PLD 106 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

ABDUL KARIM VS DIRECTOR GENERAL, FIA S. 5(5)---anti-Money Laundering act (VII of 2010), S. 8---Seizure of assets---Constitution of Pakistan, arts. 4, 9, 18, 23, 24 & 25---Constitutional petition---attachment of property involved in money laundering---Scope---Petitioner was facing inquiry and investigation and Federal Investigation agency blocked his bank accounts---Validity---Freezing of bank accounts deprives individuals of their hope to lead a meaningful life, as it takes away their most significant asset (cash in bank accounts)---Thus, some Investigating Officers, who made departure from observing formalities while blocking the accounts of citizens for an indefinite period, could not be allowed to violate the fundamental rights of citizens, enshrined in arts. 4, 9, 18, 23, 24 & 25 of the Constitution---Said provisions of law provided the entire mechanism for attachment of property involved in money laundering, wherein, the Investigating Officer on the basis of a report in his possession received from the concerned investigating agency, by order in writing, with prior permission of the Court, could provisionally attach property, which he reasonably believed to be proceeds of crimes or involved in money laundering for a period not exceeding ninety days from the date of such order---If such permission was granted, then in terms of S. 9 of the anti-Money Laundering act, the Investigating Officer shall not later than seven days from the date of order of attachment made under subsection (1) of S. 8, served a notice of not less than 30 days on the person concerned---Such notice shall call upon the person to indicate the sources of his income, earning or assets or out of which or by means of which he has acquired the property attached under subsection (1) of S. 8 and the evidence in which he relied and the other relevant information and particulars---Members of Federal Investigation agency frequently closed third-party accounts involving odd transactions under mere suspicion and that too without affording them an opportunity to explain their position regarding the transactions---Instead of freezing the account to the extent of the amount involved in the alleged transaction, they blocked the account while barring the third party from enjoying the amount not relevant to the alleged transaction---admittedly, primarily the order of seizure was to be obtained from the appropriate authority and in the latter part of S. 5(5), it was mentioned that such seizure order was subject to confirmation by the Court having jurisdiction to try the offence---Members of Federal Investigation agency, while inquiring or investigating an offence of money laundering or any other offence within their jurisdiction, must seek permission from the Court to freeze bank accounts under S. 5(5) of the Federal Investigation agency act, 1974 and Ss. 8 & 9 of the anti-Money Laundering act, 2010---Such permission must be sought from the Court within the territorial jurisdiction where the offence occurred specially the Court in whose territory the holder of a bank account under investigation was involved in suspicious activity or directly connected to an offence of money laundering---Federal Investigation agency was a federal entity and had its tentacles throughout the country, as such calling of suspects to different cities of the country or headquarters, instead of conducting investigations at their place of residence was not suitable---Localized approach instead of the currently adhered centralized one could yield better results and streamline operations---In such state of affairs, the impugned seizure letter dated 10.10.2022 issued by the assistant Director, State Bank Circle (SBC) FIa suffered from perversity; was clear transgression of authority, and was a nullity in the eye of law---Petitions were allowed, in circumstances.

ABDUL KARIM vs DIRECTOR GENERAL, FIA S — 2025 PLD 106 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD