Summary: Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism) Regulations, 2018--- ----Reglns. 4(a), 13(3), 13(7), 18(a), 18(c)(v), 9(4)(a)(b), 9(4)(8)(c), 6(4), 13(1), 6(3)(a) & 6(3)(c)---Anti-money laundering regulatory framework, non-compliance of---Appellant (Trading Rights Entitlement Certificate holder of the Pakistan Stock Exchange Limited) was penalized for violation of Anti-Money Laundering Regulations 2018 (‘the Regulations 2018’)---Validity---Appellant failed to comply with the Regulations 2018 in many respects as it had not provided adequate justification for the failure to maintain the record properly and ensure on-going monitoring---Appellant’s failure to provide the required documentation during the inspection period, including records of beneficial ownership, sources of income and updates to client information, constituted significant violations---Thus, no reason to interfere with the merits of the Impugned Order was found and the imposed penalty was upheld---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Arsalan Tahir (Company Secretary) for Appellant. Mahboob Ahmed (Additional Director) and Muhammad Anwar Hashmi (Additional Joint Director) for Respondent. Date of hearing: 17th October, 2024.

Summary: Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (Anti Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism) Regulations, 2018--- ----Reglns. 6(5)(a), 6(3)(a), 6(4), 6(8) & 13(7)---Anti-Money laundering regulatory requirements, non-compliance of ---Effect---Appellant (non-bank microfinance company) was penalized by the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (the Commission) for violations such as failure to appropriately categorize customers, verify CNICs through the NADRA Verisys system and monitor business relationships with associates of prescribed individuals---Assertion of the Commission / Respondent was that the violations were significant---Validity---While the Appellant had made significant efforts to comply with the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (Anti Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism) Regulations, 2018 (‘the AML/CFT Regulations, 2018’) including monitoring its customer relationships and reporting identified issues, yet several deficiencies remained in its compliance practices ; however, the Appellant took proactive steps to correct these shortcomings, including updating its policies, reporting proscribed individuals and recalling loans associated with such persons---Appellant demonstrated good faith by taking corrective actions as soon as the issues were identified, highlighting its commitment to regulatory compliance---Appellant’s non-compliance, although serious, was not deliberate or intentional and the deficiencies identified were primarily technical in nature, and in isolation, they did not present an immediate or substantial risk to the financial systems or cause financial harm---Additionally, the Appellant took prompt corrective actions upon being informed of these issues, including voluntarily disclosing the violations and implementing corrective measures, which demonstrated that the infractions were not indicative of a broader systemic failure---As such, the penalty of Rs.1,000,000 initially imposed was disproportionate to the severity and scope of the violations, particularly given the Appellant's timely and proactive steps to remedy the situation---In light of the Appellant's efforts to rectify the deficiencies and its overall commitment to regulatory compliance, the Appellate Bench funds it appropriate to reduce the penalty to Rs. 350,000, reflecting both the minor nature of the violations in the broader context of the Appellant's operations and its prompt corrective measures---Appeal was disposed of accordingly. Saira Sofi (Authorized Representative), Mehek Zafar and Shehla Sattar for Appellant. Asima Wajid, Additional Joint Director, Adjudication Department-I, Adjudication Division, SECP, Sohail Qadri, Director/HOD, Adjudication Department-I, Adjudication Division, SECP and Naveed Iqbal, Deputy Director, Adjudication Department-I, Adjudication Division, SECP for Respondent. Date of hearing: 16th January, 2025.

Summary: Anti-Money Laundering Act (VII of 2010)--- ----S. 6(A)(2)(h)---Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Sanctions Rules, 2020, R. 4(1)---Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (Anti Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism) Regulations, 2018, Reglns. 25(1)(a) & 31---Anti-money laundering regulatory framework, non-compliance of---Appellant (a non-bank microfinance company) was penalized by Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (‘the Commission’) for violations of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism) Regulations, 2018 (‘the Regulations, 2018’)---Validity---Appellant had subsequently made significant efforts to comply with Regulations, 2018 and had implemented a robust screening system, utilizing multiple authoritative sources, and had also promptly addressed any minor technical glitches, such as data omissions and CNIC discrepancies, which deficiencies were minimal and did not result in financial harm or the provision of services to proscribed individuals---Appellant had demonstrated good faith by taking corrective actions in a timely manner which highlighted a genuine commitment to compliance so the violation was not intentional or wilful and did not pose a significant risk---Thus, the penalty of Rs. 480,000 imposed on the Appellant was disproportionate to the nature and extent of the violation and Appellant’s actions indicated an ongoing commitment to compliance with regulatory requirements and in the absence of malicious intent the penalty should appropriately reflect the minor nature of the deficiencies and the Appellant’s proactive steps to rectify the situation--- Appellate Bench reduced the penalty to Rs. 190,000/= considering the Appellant’s efforts to comply with the regulations and to promptly address any shortcomings---Appeal was disposed of accordingly. Saira Soofi (Authorized Representative), Mehek Zafar and Shehla Sattar for Appellant. Asima Wajid, Additional Joint Director, Adjudication Department-I, Adjudication Division, SECP, Sohail Qadri, Director/HOD, Adjudication Department-I, Adjudication Division, SECP and Naveed Iqbal, Deputy Director, Adjudication Department-I, Adjudication Division, SECP for Respondent. Date of hearing: 16th January, 2025.

Summary: In terms of Section 33 of the Act any person aggrieved may file an appeal within 30 days against final order of the consumer court passing such an order. Granting an aggrieved party adequate time to challenge an order while maintaining procedural discipline that statutory limitation periods are not mere technicalities but substantive provisions that serve to promote finality in litigation and judicial efficiency. The law mandates strict adherence to limitation period, courts possess discretion to condone delay in exceptional circumstances. This discretion, however, must be exercised sparingly and cautiously. Section 34 of the Act deals with the finality of order. This provision in consumer law is acknowledged as finality clause which stipulates that once the statutory appeal period, typically 30 days expires, the judicial order issued by the consumer court attains finality and becomes legally enforceable.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: In terms of Section 33 of the Act any person aggrieved may file an appeal within 30 days against final order of the consumer court passing such an order. Granting an aggrieved party adequate time to challenge an order while maintaining procedural discipline that statutory limitation periods are not mere technicalities but substantive provisions that serve to promote finality in litigation and judicial efficiency. The law mandates strict adherence to limitation period, courts possess discretion to condone delay in exceptional circumstances. This discretion, however, must be exercised sparingly and cautiously. Section 34 of the Act deals with the finality of order. This provision in consumer law is acknowledged as finality clause which stipulates that once the statutory appeal period, typically 30 days expires, the judicial order issued by the consumer court attains finality and becomes legally enforceable. 706Family 62973/24 Nazir Ahmad & 1 other Vs ADJ Kasur etc. Mr. Justice Ch. Muhammad Iqbal 20- 02- 2025 2025 LHC 2015

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXXI of 2019), S.9(D)---Possession of narcotic substances---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Prosecution case was that 7200 grams opium and 7200 grams charas was recovered from both the accused/petitioners respectively---No doubt, both petitioners were found in possession of huge quantity of contraband opium and charas, however, record prima facie revealed that spot/recovery proceedings were not recorded in the shape of video---No private witness had been associated with the spot proceedings for ensuring transparency---Record was also silent to show any previous involvement of petitioners in such like offence or that they were drug peddlers---Besides, investigation of the case was complete and the petitioners were no more required for investigation---At the same time, the record also revealed that in respect of one of the petitioners, positive pregnancy report was present--- Besides, on account of her arrest two of her minor children were also confined with her and exposed to hostile as well as unfavorable environment of the prison---Welfare of minor children could not be ignored---No doubt, petitioners were arrested on account of recovery of huge quantity of contraband from their direct possession however, positive pregnancy report of one of the petitioners coupled with the confinement of minors with her, had made out her case for the purpose of bail under first proviso of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Although, the case of co-accused was distinguishable from that of petitioner, but she had also made out her case for the purpose of bail---Bail petition was allowed in circumstances. Imdad Ullah v. The State 2024 PCr.LJ 652 and Mst. Nusrat v. The State 1996 SCMR 973 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Bail---Scope---Release of accused on bail did not amount to acquittal, it is merely a change in the custody of accused where same is taken from the State and entrusted to his/her sureties. Haji Muhammad Nazir and others v. The State 2008 SCMR 807; Zaigham Ashraf v. The State and others 2016 SCMR 18 and Zahid Sarfaraz Gill v. The State 2024 SCMR 934 rel. Hamad Hussain for Petitioner. Nauroz Khan Addl. A.G for the State. Date of hearing: 21st February, 2025.