The Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) Tuesday registered a case against former prime minister Imran Khan and other PTI leaders in connection with their party's prohibited funding case, Aaj News reported.

They have also been booked under Section 23 (penalty and procedure) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947.

Prohibited funding case: PTI leader remanded in two-day custody of FIA

The complaint named Imran Khan, Sardar Azhar Tariq Khan, Saifullah Khan Nyazee, Syed Yunus Ali Raza, Aamer Mehmood Kiani, Tariq Rahim Sheikh, Tariq Shafi, Faisal Maqbool Shaikh, Hamid Zaman and Manzoor Ahmad Chaudhary as beneficiaries of the PTI account in question.

According to the FIR, the manager of a private bank has also been named in the case for allegedly allowing the operation of an illegal bank account operated by PTI.

Last week, a city magistrate remanded a leader of the PTI Hamid Zaman in the two-day physical custody of the FIA in the prohibited funding case against the party.

The magistrate observed that recovery of the documents mentioned by the prosecution was necessary for the completion of the investigation. Therefore, he granted two-day physical remand of the suspect with a directive to the FIA to produce him again on October 10.

FIA to probe prohibited funding case: Jubilant coalition govt decides to send a declaration to SC

The FIA officials had produced Mr Zaman before the magistrate and sought a 14-day physical remand. An assistant director of FIA told the magistrate that the suspect’s custody was required because a trust deed and other vital proof of transactions needed to be recovered from him.

He said that ledgers were always prepared regarding a trust property and accounts were maintained manually or digitally, but the suspect had not produced the ledgers and counterfoils of the cheques issued by him to the Insaf Trust.

Zaman’s counsel argued that the case was registered in the light of an observation made by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) in its judgement issued on June 21, 2022 that the suspect transferred prohibited funds to Insaf Trust.

However, he claimed that the suspect rightly transferred the funds and the same were rightly used. The counsel said that Mr Zaman was not a signatory to the cheques through which the funds were transferred.

PTI received prohibited funding, says ECP

He further said that the bank account mentioned in the FIR had no relevance whatsoever with the judgement of the ECP. He said the suspect was already cooperating with the investigation agency and had not concealed anything about the case.

He said the trust deed was a registered document, which was available in the office of the sub-registrar. The record regarding the bank transactions is also available from the concerned banks, he added.

In August, ECP ruled that PTI had received prohibited funding and kept 13 bank accounts hidden.

"The data obtained from SBP reveals that all the 13 accounts disowned by PTI were opened and operated by the senior PTI management and leadership at the Central and Provincial levels.

"In this regard, it is further added that PTI failed to mention and disclose three accounts which were also being operated by the senior leadership of the party," the verdict read.

The verdict said that hiding accounts was a "violation" of Article 17 of the Constitution. As per the said article “Every political party shall account for the source of its funds in accordance with law”.

The ECP found that donations were taken from America, Australia, Canada and the UAE. As per the verdict, PTI "knowingly and willfully” received funding from Wootton Cricket Limited, operated by business tycoon Arif Naqvi.

The party also received donations through PTI Canada Corporation and PTI UK Public Limited Company, the verdict read.

The commission also said that PTI chief Imran Khan had submitted a “mis-declaration” with the commission.

The prohibited funding case was first filed in November 2014 by Akbar S. Babar, who accused the PTI and its leadership of corruption and illegal funding of the party.

In February 2017, the IHC remanded the case back to the ECP for a fresh review of its jurisdiction.