| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 4177 = 2026 SLD 4177 = 2026 CLD 704 |
Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan
Appeal No.42 of 2020, decided on 21st February, 2025.
Presented By: Abdul Rehman Warriach and Mujtaba Ahmad Lodhi, Commissioners
Imran Khalil Naseer, CEO for Appellant. Sohail Qadri, Director/HOD, Adjudication-I SECP and Muhammad Faisal, Assistant Director, Adjudication-I, SECP for
Respondent.
Appeal No.42 of 2020, decided on 21st February, 2025.
Presented By: Abdul Rehman Warriach and Mujtaba Ahmad Lodhi, Commissioners
Imran Khalil Naseer, CEO for Appellant. Sohail Qadri, Director/HOD, Adjudication-I SECP and Muhammad Faisal, Assistant Director, Adjudication-I, SECP for
Respondent.
FLOAT SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED---Appellant
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER (SMD)---Respondent
Law: Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (Search and Seizure) Rules, 2018
Section: 4(d), 16(9)(e), 18( c ) (ii)
Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism) Regulations, 2018 Reglns. 4(d), 16(9)(e) & 18( c ) (ii)---Maintaining independent audit function, failure of---Effect---Appellant was a Trading Rights Entitlement Certificate holder of the Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) and was licensed as a securities broker with the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan ( the Commission )---Appellant was penalized by the Commission for violations of provisions of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism) Regulations, 2018 ( the AML and CFT Regulations 2018 )---Validity---Appellant failed to establish an independent auditing system, which was essential for ensuring adherence to the AML and CFT Regulations 2018---Having an internal audit system, along with a compliance officer to enforce internal policies and procedures related to the AML and CFT Regulations 2018, was equally essential---However, in view the severity of the violations, the quantum of penalty was on the high side as the intention was not malicious, and the AML and CFT Regulations 2018 were subsequently complied with---Thus, at a nascent stage a hefty penalty might unreasonably burden the company financially and its intention had always been to ensure full compliance---Purpose of the fine was to cause a deterrent and enforce remedial action, and in the present case even if the fine was reduced, the purpose would be served---Appellate Bench reduced the amount of the penalty imposed on the appellant from Rs. 200,000 to Rs. 100,000, with the expectation that the appellant would fully comply with the requirements of the AML and CFT Regulations, 2018 in the future---Appeal was disposed accordingly. Date of hearing: 9th January, 2025. …