| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLD 3638 = 2026 CLD 638 |
Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan
Appeal No.18 of 2023, decided on 24th December, 2024.
Presented By: Abdul Rehman Warraich and Mujtaba Ahmad Lodhi, Commissioners
Arslan Tahir (Company Secretary) for Appellant. Mahboob Ahmed (Additional Director, Adjudication-I, SECP) M. Faisal (Assistant Director, Adjudication-I, SECP) and Zenia Rahat (Management Trainee Adjudication-I, SECP) for
Respondent.
Appeal No.18 of 2023, decided on 24th December, 2024.
Presented By: Abdul Rehman Warraich and Mujtaba Ahmad Lodhi, Commissioners
Arslan Tahir (Company Secretary) for Appellant. Mahboob Ahmed (Additional Director, Adjudication-I, SECP) M. Faisal (Assistant Director, Adjudication-I, SECP) and Zenia Rahat (Management Trainee Adjudication-I, SECP) for
Respondent.
FIRST NATIONAL EQUITIES LIMITED---Appellant
VERSUS
DIRECTOR/HOD, ADJUDICATION-I---Respondent
Law: Anti Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Regulations for DNFBPs, 2020
Section: 11, 13, 31, 1
Law: Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Act, 2010
Section: 5(A)(2)(h), 6(A)(2)(h)
Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism) Regulations, 2020 Reglns. 11, 13, 31 & Annex. 1---Anti-Money Laundering Act (VII of 2010), Ss.5(A)(2)(h) & 6(A)(2)(h)---Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Sanctions Rules, 2020, Rr. 4(1) & 6(1)---Requirements with respect to Anti-Money Laundering provisions, non-compliance of---Effect---Appellant (a trading rights entitlement certification holder of the Pakistan Stock Exchange Limited) was penalized for its failure to identify the ultimate beneficial owners for three of its corporate clients---Validity---Appellant was obligated to fully comply with the relevant provisions under Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism) Regulations, 2020 ( Anti-Money Laundering Regulations )---While the appellant did provide certain documents, nonetheless it was revealed that the beneficial owners were not identified specifically in the Client Information Report (CIR)---Thus, the appellant failed to provide any document or evidence to establish the identity of the beneficial owner of its corporate clients, or to show that any reasonable measures were taken to do so, as required under Annex. 1 of the Anti-Money Laundering Regulations---Though there had been a confusion regarding the CDC account number mentioned in the impugned order, yet the respondent / Commission did provide names for the respective accounts---Violations were of grave nature, hence required a higher financial sanction, however, the respondent had resorted to imposing the least minimum penalty upon the appellants---Therefore, no ground to interfere with the impugned order was found---Appellate Bench upheld the impugned order and maintained the penalty of Rs. 30,000/----Appeal was dismissed. Date of hearing: 17th October, 2024. …