LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has held that the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) cannot arbitrarily freeze bank accounts or keep them frozen indefinitely without prior permission of the concerned court.

The court said that the freezing of accounts affects the right to privacy and the reputation of the account holder hence such actions would violate the account holder’s constitutional and legal rights.

The court passed this order in a petition from Muhammad Bilal Nawaz challenging the jurisdiction of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) to restrict his bank account.

FBR may block bank accounts of non-filers

The FIA had received a complaint against the petitioner who was an employee of Millat Tractor, which alleged that he was involved in a financial crime and received various sums of money into his bank account unlawfully.

The court held that under section 5(5) of the FIA Act, the FIA is authorized only to exercise search and seize powers during investigations, not inquiries.

The court said the FIA whenever issues a directive restricting an individual’s bank account, whether during an inquiry or investigation, it must promptly notify the relevant magistrate or court, which would then issue an order in accordance with the law appropriate to the situation and circumstances.

The court observed that the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) 1898 stands as a bulwark against the abuse of power by police and law enforcement agencies, providing a comprehensive mechanism to ensure accountability and transparency in their actions.

If the FIA fails in this duty, the aggrieved person may approach the magistrate or the court concerned for redress of his grievance, the court added.

The court observed the record of the present case shows that the respondent official has blatantly disregarded sections 8 and 9 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act 2010 (AMLA).

He did not obtain permission from the competent court before issuing directives to the concerned bank for restricting the petitioner’s account, the court added.

The court also said the respondent officer did not apply to the court for an order under section 9(3) thereof and also failed to submit a monthly progress report of the investigation to the court.

The court, therefore, accepted the petition and annulled the limitation placed on the petitioner’s bank account.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024