Iffat Iqbal vs The State and another
This criminal appeal is directed against the order passed by the Special Judge (Customs, Taxation and Anti-Smuggling), Lahore, whereby the bank accounts of the appellant, along with those of another accused in a case registered under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, were provisionally attached for 180 days. The core legal question pertained to the legality of attaching joint bank accounts held by the appellant in connection with a partnership business involving the main accused. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the provisional attachment order suffered from no illegality or impropriety, given that the appellant's joint accounts were part of a partnership business allegedly operated by the main accused, who held a substantial share in the enterprise. The key principle laid down is that provisional attachment of joint business bank accounts under anti-money laundering and tax laws is sustainable where the primary accused is shown to be actively operating and holding substantial stakes in the joint business.
- Whether provisional attachment of joint bank accounts under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 is sustainable when the main accused operates the joint business?
- Does an order attaching bank accounts passed by the Special Judge under tax and anti-money laundering laws warrant interference without proof of illegality?
- Are joint partnership accounts liable to provisional attachment in criminal proceedings involving a co-partner?
- Section 192, Income Tax Ordinance 2001
- Section 192-A, Income Tax Ordinance 2001
- Section 3, Anti-Money Laundering Act 2010
- Section 4, Anti-Money Laundering Act 2010
- Section 8, Anti-Money Laundering Act 2010
ORDER
SYED SHAHBAZ ALI RIZVI, J.---The appellant through this criminal appeal has come up to this Court assailing the order dated 27.10.2021, passed by learned Special Judge (Customs, Taxation and Anti-Smuggling), Lahore whereby the bank accounts of the appellant besides those of Shahid Hanif accused of case FIR No.13/2020 dated 22.06.2020 registered under sections 192-192-A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 read with sections 3, 4 and 8 of the Anti- Money Laundering Act, 2010, have been provisionally attached for 180 days from the date of said order.
2. Arguments heard. Record Perused.
3. During arguments, it surfaced that the accounts of the appellant available at Serial Nos.2, 5, 13, 22, 23, 25 and 33 of the list provided by the respondent/Investigation Agency to the learned Court below pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant are joint accounts titled Suryia Cotton Industries. Shahid Hanif accused mentioned supra also jointly holds the same as per partnership deed of the appellant with the said accused available on file which transpires that the appellant is the owner of 20% of the joint business while Shahid Hanif accused owns 30% share of the same. As per same deed, the accounts are to be operated by all the partners singly or jointly. It is also admitted fact that the appellant is wife of Tahir Hanif brother of Shahid Hanif and during upto date investigation, as per Officer in attendance, it stands established that actually Shahid Hanif accused runs the whole business. Keeping in view the supra mentioned facts, this Court is of the opinion that order under challenge does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety requiring interference by this Court being sought through this appeal. Hence, the same is dismissed.