Senate panel seeks details of Rs410m bank fraud

ISLAMABAD: The Senate Standing Committee on Finance has sought details about alleged bank fraud of Rs410 million from expatriate Pakistanis. The amount was allegedly stolen through forgery in a local bank.

The Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) informed the Senate panel that it was proved through forensic documents that the bank staff was found involved in fake signatures on cheques for the withdrawal of the amount. Now the FIR will be registered against all accused and actions will be taken against them.

The committee met under Senator Saleem Mandviwalla here on Wednesday in which the FIA’s additional director told the participants that the inquiry in case of alleged bank fraud was underway. The FIA has obtained forensic report till February 7 in which it was proved that fake signatures on cheques were used to draw the money.

“This alleged fraud case was very complex,” he said and added that the bank itself did an internal inquiry and allegedly found its manager involved in it after which he was sacked from service. He also informed the committee that details of only two accounts were shared while nothing was provided in case of four accounts.

All senators were unanimous in demanding stern action against those who were found involved in such banking frauds.

The affected persons told the committee that the fraud was committed in 2017 but the bank did not cooperate with them, rather they were being harassed in all those years.

The committee also requested a fact-finding report on the issue to be presented in the next meeting. The complainants were also allowed to present their plea before the committee.

However, the bank in its brief shared with the committee stated that an amount of Rs20.5 million was recovered from an ex-employee on account of discrepant transaction and handed over to the customers through pay orders. “In consideration of above stated amount, we undertake and confirm that we shall not have any further claim, action, demand of whatsoever nature against the bank either directly or indirectly,” the bank stated in its reply.