SHC Orders NAB Report in Rs15bn Fraud Case
The constitutional bench of the Sindh High Court has directed the National Accountability Bureau to submit a progress report within two weeks on its investigation into an alleged investment fraud involving more than Rs15 billion. The SHC NAB investment fraud case came before the court during the hearing of a contempt petition against the NAB chairman, the director general of NAB Karachi, and others.
The petitioners say more than 1,000 citizens were defrauded of over Rs15 billion in the name of investments. They objected to NAB’s decision to transfer the case to the Federal Investigation Agency. The court exempted the director general of NAB Karachi from appearing at the next hearing, and it directed the petitioners to provide all relevant evidence.
The director general appeared before the court for this hearing. NAB prosecutor Sadaf Rajput told the bench that the case did not fall within NAB’s jurisdiction under the relevant laws, and that it had therefore been referred to the FIA. She said NAB was willing to investigate the matter if the petitioners sought an inquiry under court orders. That position sets up the question the court must now settle: which agency should carry this case, and on what legal basis.
SHC NAB investment fraud case: why the agency matters
The choice of agency is not a technical detail for the people who say they lost money. NAB and the FIA work under different laws and handle different kinds of cases. NAB deals with corruption and cases involving holders of public office and public funds, while the FIA handles a wider set of federal offences, including many fraud and cybercrime cases. When a case moves from one agency to the other, the legal framework, the investigating officers, and the court that eventually hears it can all change.
Petitioners in fraud cases often resist a transfer because they fear delay. A new agency must study the record from the start, and evidence gathered under one law may need fresh handling under another. NAB’s statement that it is willing to investigate under court orders leaves the bench with a clear path: it can direct an inquiry itself, rather than leaving the transfer unchallenged. The two-week progress report will show what NAB has actually done so far, and whether its jurisdictional objection still stands after the court’s order.
The contempt petition adds pressure of its own. A contempt petition asks the court to act against officials who are alleged to have disobeyed its orders or obstructed its process. The reporting so far does not detail which order the petitioners say was disobeyed. The court’s decision to seek a progress report, rather than ruling on contempt at this hearing, suggests the bench wants facts on the record first. That is a common sequence in such cases: establish what the agency did, then decide whether its conduct amounts to contempt.
What the petitioners must now produce
The court also placed a duty on the petitioners. They must provide all relevant evidence in support of their claim. That direction matters because the size of the alleged fraud, more than Rs15 billion across more than 1,000 citizens, will need documents to back it. Investment receipts, bank transfers, agreements, and records of promised returns would form the core of such evidence, though the reporting does not list what the petitioners have already filed.
For citizens who believe they were defrauded in an investment scheme, the case carries a wider lesson. Promises of high returns, pressure to invest quickly, and schemes that pay early investors from later deposits are warning signs that regulators repeat in public advisories. Keeping payment records and written agreements, and checking whether a scheme is registered with the relevant regulator, gives investigators a starting point that a verbal complaint alone cannot provide. None of that proves the facts of this particular case, which the court has yet to decide.
