| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLD 3476 |
W.P. No.3787-2022
Presented By: (MOHSIN AKHTAR KAYANI) JUDGE (ARBAB MUHAMMAD TAHIR) JUDGE
Petitioners by : Sardar Abdul Raziq Khan, Advocate.
Respondents by : Mr Jehanzaib Khan Bharwana, Addl. Prosecutor General Accountability. Sardar Muzaffar Abbasi, Deputy Prosecutor General Accountability. Mr Muhammad Rafey Maqsood, Special Public Prosecutor, NAB. Mr Adnan Khan Tahir, Advocate for other respondents. Barrister Munawar Iqbal Duggal, Addl. Attorney General. Mr Naseem Saqlain, Assistant Attorney General. Mr Usman Ghuman, Assistant Attorney General. Mr Hassan Raza Khan, DIG/Acting IG, ICT Police. Mr Basharat Shahzad, Addl. Director General, NAB. Mr Masood Naseem, Addl. Director (Law), FIA. Mr Waqas Rasool, Dy. Director (Law), FIA. Syed Tahir Abbas Kazmi, Law Officer, ICT Police. Qazi Atif Naseer, AD/I.O., NAB. Date of Hearing : 20-12-2022.
Adam Amin Chaudhry & another
VERSUS
National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Islamabad through its Chairman & 29 others
Law: National Accountability Ordinance, 1999
Section: 4(2), 4(3), 5(o), 5(s), 9(a)(vi), (ix), (xii), 12, 16(e), 17, 31-B
Law: National Accountability (Amendment) Act, 2022
Section: 3 & 4
Law: Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Act, 2010
Section: 369, 561-A
Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Section: XXVII-A
Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Section:
Summary
The petitioners sought release (defreezing) of their movable and immovable properties, including bank accounts, which had been frozen during proceedings under Reference No. 11/2021 filed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB). The reference alleged that the petitioners operated a Ponzi investment scheme under the name All Pakistan Projects, collecting approximately Rs. 1.81 billion from over 12,000 investors.
During the trial, the Accountability Court had frozen the petitioners' assets under Section 12 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (NAO). After the National Accountability (Amendment) Acts, 2022, the Accountability Court returned the reference to NAB instead of transferring it to a competent court.
The petitioners argued that since the reference was no longer pending, the freezing order had automatically become ineffective. NAB contended that the petitioners had neither been acquitted nor discharged, investigations had revealed additional victims exceeding the statutory threshold, and the matter still required trial before the appropriate forum.