The Sindh High Court has granted bail to two businessmen in a money laundering and fraud case. The applicants, Rizwan Riaz and Imran Khan, were booked by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) under anti-money laundering charges.
According to the FIA, applicants were running a business in stocks and had invited general public to invest in the same. The FIA alleged that people inspired by their advertisement invested huge amounts in their business, however, the applicants along with other accused misappropriated the said amounts and did not give profit to the people.
The FIA alleged that the applicants used the invested money for purchasing properties, an offence under the Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code, and the amounts invested by the general public were deposited by the applicants in their bank accounts and those of their proxies for layering the proceeds of the crime.
The agency stated that that applicants succeeded in integrating the amounts in their own accounts by laundering and then purchased various properties, thereby committed offence punishable under the sections 3 and 4 of Anti-Money Laundering Act 2010 (AMLA).
The applicants’ counsel submitted that they had been behind the bars since February 21, 2022 and it had been more than two years and yet not a single witness had been examined. They submitted that at least 32 witnesses had been cited in the charge sheet and looking at the pace of trial, it was easy to contemplate it would take many years to complete.
The counsel argued that the applicants were entitled to concession of bail on the statutory delay ground as the delay in the trial had not been occasioned by any act of the applicants.
A federal law officer and counsel of affected investors opposed the bail application and submitted that as this was a case of cheating public at large, the applicants were likely to repeat the offence in case they were granted bail.
The law officer submitted that the high court had earlier dismissed their bail application and when they approached the Supreme Court, they did not press the petition and undertook to deposit a sum of Rs.600 million, the misappropriated amount, before the trial court for seeking concession of bail, which is recorded in the court order October 17, 2022.
He submitted that the applicants had filed an application for review of the said order before the Supreme Court, which was still pending and therefore the instant application was not maintainable.
A single bench of the high court comprising Justice Mohammad Iqbal Kalhoro after hearing the arguments and perusal of the record observed that the applicants had been booked in a case under the sections 3 and 4 of the AMLA, and the punishment for that was for a term that shall not be less than one year, but may extend up to 10 years in addition to a fine that may extend to Rs25 million.
The SHC observed that if found guilty, the accused shall also be liable to forfeiture of property invaded in money laundering or property of corresponding value.
The high court observed that the investigation officer had submitted that in compliance with the section 8 of the AMLA, properties of the applicants worth Rs2 billion had already been attached.
The applicants’ counsel informed the SHC that he had already filed an application for withdrawal of the review application before the Supreme Court but due to one or the other reason, it had not been taken up.
The SHC observed that the applicants had been in jail for more than two years and there was nothing on record to show that the delay was caused by them.
The SHC observed that the order of the Supreme Court clearly depicted that after arguing the matter at some length, applicants had not pressed the petition for bail and had submitted that since in the investigation sum of Rs600 million was found misappropriated by them, they were willing to deposit the same.
The high court observed that prima facie, it was a statement of intention and their willingness to make good of the loss of the victims.
The SHC observed that it did not consider the SC order or the application for review of the same order as a hindrance in the right of the applicants to bail.
The bench observed that the applicants were able to make out a case for bail on statutory delay ground, for not a single witness so far had been examined since they had been in jail.
The high court granted bail to the applicants subject to furnishing two solvent sureties in the sum of Rs1 million each and a PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.
The SHC directed the investigation officer to deposit the rent amount of the properties of the applicants attached by him in the trail court till the final decision of the trial. The bench observed that if the trial ended against the applicants, the same amount shall be disbursed to the satisfaction of the established claim of the victims after proper verification.