Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLD 3645 = 2026 CLD 677
Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan
Appeal No.44 of 2021, decided on 7th February, 2025.
Presented By: Abdul Rehman Warraich and Mujtaba Ahmad Lodhi, Commissioners
  Muhammad Najam Ali, CEO and Rizwan Yousaf, Company Secretary for Appellant.        Sohail Qadri, Director/HOD, Adjudication-I Department, Adjudication Division, SECP and Muhammad Akram Farooka, Assistant Director, Adjudication-I, Department, Adjudication Division, SECP for
Respondents.

NEXT CAPITAL LIMITED---Appellant

VERSUS

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ADJUDICATION DEPARTMENT-I, SECP---Respondent

Law: Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (Anti Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism) Regulations, 2018

Section: 6(3)(a), 6(3)(c), 6(4), 6(8), 4(a), 13(7)

Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism) Regulations, 2018 Reglns. 6(3)(a), 6(3)(c), 6(4), 6(8), 4(a) & 13(7)---Requirements of Anti-Money Laundering Regulations---Contravention by the Company---Appellant (Trading Right Entitlement Certificate holder of the Pakistan Stock Exchange and licensed as securities broker) was penalized by Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan ( the Commission ) for contravention of provisions of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism) Regulations, 2018 ( the AML Regulations, 2018 )---Validity---Appellant had the responsibility to strictly adhere to the relevant requirements outlined in the AML Regulations, 2018 which were notified on June 13, 2018---Appellant had ample time to implement systems required to ensure compliance with the said AML Regulations, 2018 as the Inspection was started in 2020---Subsequent rectification actions did not absolve the appellant from the committed violations---Notably, the appellant provided the requisite information in the highlighted instances in compliance of Reglns. 6(3)(a), 6(3)(c) & 6(4) of the AML Regulations, 2018 subsequent to the inspection, but failed to provide proper evidence and justification for contravention of Reglns. 6(8), 4(a) & 13(7) of the AML Regulations, 2018---Under the circumstances, the appellant could not be exonerated from the alleged violations, however, in view of the subsequent compliance and future commitment, Appellate Bench, reduced the imposed penalty vide the impugned order from Rs. 650,000 to Rs. 325,000---Appeal was disposed of accordingly.              Date of hearing: 9th January, 2025.                                                                                                    …
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register