Tag: fiscal fraud

  • Banking fraud: Rs7.6 million withdrawn on un-signed cheque

    Banking fraud: Rs7.6 million withdrawn on un-signed cheque

    ISLAMABAD: A bank account holder is fortunate to get back an amount of Rs7.6 million on the intervention of Banking Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Pakistan. The amount was fraudulently withdrawn from the account on a foraged cheque and the branch manager was found involved in the fraud.

    A case related to cash withdrawn on forged cheque is reported in the fifteenth Annual Report of Banking Mohtasib Pakistan for the year ending 31 December 2019.

    The report said that the complainant was maintaining a joint account with his wife with operational instructions “Either or Survivor” since December 18, 2012.

    “They had neither applied for a cheque book nor any cheque book was ever delivered to them, yet an amount of Rs 7.600 (M) was withdrawn from their account without their consent and knowledge.

    “The Complainant demanded refund, but the Bank paid no heed to his request.

    “Complainant, therefore, lodged a complaint with the Banking Mohtasib.”

    The Bank was asked to submit detailed investigation report along with copies of AOF, SS Card, KYC, disputed cheque No. 105805316 for Rs 7,600,000/- dated 21.04.2017 (both sides), statement of account and cheque book issuance request and delivery proof thereof.

    The Bank provided the requisite documents. On examination of the provided documents it was found that: According to the Complainant, they had never applied for issuance of any cheque book at any time.

    “From the Cheque book requisition request it was observed that the signature thereon was clearly different from the signature of Complainant recorded on his AOF and S. S. Card. Clearly, therefore, the cheque book was issued against a fake signature,” the report said.

    On perusal of cheque dated 21-04-2017 for Rs 7.600 (M), it was observed that it was not signed at all.

    As per Complainant, the cheque was not mandated. It was obvious that the Bank cleared the unsigned cheque which was a nullity in law.

    Further, neither any Call-back Confirmation was done nor could the Bank explain in its defence as to how payment was made on a cheque which was void under law and not a cheque at all.

    The payment of huge sum of Rs 7.600 (M) in cash was also surprising.

    Due to the seriousness of the lapses on the part of the Bank, the case was set for a formal hearing on May 2, 2019 at our Regional Office, Rawalpindi.

    The Bank’s representative produced related Cheque Book Requisition slip (CBR) along with paid cheque.

    On examination of CBR it was observed that a cheque book of five leaves, bearing number 105805316 to 105805320, was issued on April 21, 2017.

    The signature on CBR did not match with the signature of the Complainant available in the Bank’s record i.e. AOF & S. S. Card, whereas the Cheque number 105805316 dated 21-04-2017 against which payment of Rs 7,600,000/- was made found to be un- signed.

    On further scrutiny it was observed that cash recipient’s signatures were also not available on the back of the cheque as well as denominational details were also not furnished on the back of the cheque as against general banking practice.

    Moreover, the Bank also failed to provide any record of Call-back Confirmation (CBC) to the Account-holder as per its own SOP as the cheque was of a very large sum and payment had to be made in cash.

    The Bank officials submitted that the Ex-Branch Manager, who was involved in this scam, has absconded and the Bank has lodged a report with the FIA after its initial enquiry.

    It is a well settled principle of law that the employer is vicariously liable for any fraud or other wrong doing of his employee committed in the course of his employment, whether for the benefit of the employer or not.

    In view of the above findings and as admitted position, it was concluded that the Complainant is entitled for his lump sum claim of Rs 7,600,000/- from the Bank.

    Therefore, the Bank was advised to forthwith refund the sum of Rs 7,600,000/- to the Complainant.

    The Bank subsequently, filed representation with the President Islamic Republic of Pakistan against the Order passed by the Banking Mohtasib under Section 14 of Federal Ombudsmen Institutions Reforms Act – 2013 (FOIRA) where the Order of Banking Mohtasib was up-held.

  • No refund, input adjustment to be entertained on invoice issued prior or after of blacklisting

    No refund, input adjustment to be entertained on invoice issued prior or after of blacklisting

    KARACHI: Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) said invoices issued by a person prior or after blacklisting for sales tax will not be entertained for refunds or input adjustment.

    The FBR issued Sales Tax Act, 1990 updated till June 30, 2019 incorporating amendments brought through Finance Act, 2019.

    Section 21 of the Act explained blacklisting and suspension of a taxpayer for sales tax.

    Section 21: De-registration, blacklisting and suspension of registration

    Sub-Section (1): The Board or any officer, authorized in this behalf, may subject to the rules, de-register a registered person or such class of registered persons not required to be registered under this Act.

    Sub-Section (2): Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in cases where the Commissioner is satisfied that a registered person is found to have issued fake invoices or has otherwise committed tax fraud, he may blacklist such person or suspend his registration in accordance with such procedure as the Board may by notification in the official Gazette, prescribe.

    Sub-Section (3): During the period of suspension of registration, the invoices issued by such person shall not be entertained for the purposes of sales tax refund or input tax credit, and once such person is black listed, the refund or input tax credit claimed against the invoices issued by him, whether prior or after such black listing, shall be rejected through a self-speaking appealable order and after affording an opportunity of being heard to such person.

    Sub-Section (4): Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where the Board, the concerned Commissioner or any officer authorized by the Board in this behalf has reasons to believe that a registered person is engaged in issuing fake or flying invoices, claiming fraudulent input tax or refunds, does not physically exist or conduct actual business, or is committing any other fraudulent activity, the Board, concerned Commissioner or such Officer may after recording reasons in writing, block the refunds or input tax adjustments of such person and direct the concerned Commissioner having jurisdiction for further investigation and appropriate legal action.

  • Persons committing fiscal fraud liable to 10 years jail under Customs laws

    Persons committing fiscal fraud liable to 10 years jail under Customs laws

    KARACHI: A person is liable to jail punishment up to 10 years in case of committing fiscal fraud under Customs Act, 1969.

    The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) recently updated Customs Act, 1969 under which if a person commits and offence of fiscal fraud under Section 32A of the Act then such person is liable to penalty and imprisonment.

    According to the Customs Act, 1969:

    If any person commits an offence under section 32A such person shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding three times the value of the goods in respect of which such offence is committed and such goods shall also be liable to confiscation and upon conviction by a Special Judge he shall further be liable to imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years but shall not be less than five years or to fine, or to both.

    The act explained the fiscal fraud as:

    32A. Fiscal fraud.- (1) If any person, in connection with any matter related to customs-

    (a) causes to submit documents including those filed electronically, which are concocted, altered, mutilated, false, forged, tempered or counterfeit to a functionary of customs;

    (b) declares in the goods declaration electronically filed customs declaration, the name and address of any exporter or importer which is physically non-existent at the given address;

    (c) declares in the goods declaration electronically filed customs declaration, an untrue information regarding payment of duties and taxes through self-assessment, description, quantity, quality, origin and value of goods;
    (d) alters, mutilates or suppresses any finding of the customs functionary on any document or in the computerized record; or (e) attempts, abets or connives in any action mentioned in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) above, he shall be guilty of an offence under this section.

    (2) Where, by any reason as referred to in sub-section (1) as aforesaid, any duty or tax charged or fee or fine and penalty levied under any provision of law has not been levied or has been short levied or has been refunded, the person liable to pay any amount on that account shall be served with a notice within a period of 180 days of the date of detection of such custom duty and tax fraud, requiring him to show cause as to why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice along with any other amount imposed as fine or penalty under the provisions of this Act.

    (3) The appropriate Adjudicating Officer, after considering the written or verbal representation of such person, may determine the amount of duty or tax chargeable or fee payable by such person which shall in no case exceed the amount specified in the notice and such person shall pay the amount so determined besides the fine or penalty or both.

    Related Stories

    Customs officers authorized business access for audit