|
|
|
| December 10, 2005 | Saturday | Ziqa’ad 7, 1426 |
No headway in cyber crime case
FAISALABAD, Dec 9: The Rail Bazaar investigation police have failed to make any headway in a cyber crime case about the disbursement of Rs90 million fraudulently from a local bank on behalf of a UK-based financial institution. Zafar Mahmood, assistant vice-president of a local bank branch, lodged an application with the police, claiming that his bank received a fax message from Syed Salman Ahmad of Hong Kong and the Shanghai Banking Corporation, a UK-based financial institution, that a firm, Shinhan Investment Faisalabad, maintaining account in the bank, had fraudently got transferred Rs90 million.
The investment company is being run by Hassan Khan, a resident of Amin Town.
The police responded quickly and registered a case under section 109, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of PPC and arrested two suspects Fayyaz Ahmad and Yasir Arafat.
Inquiries revealed that the gang involved in the cyber crime was had committed the crime with the help of some computer hackers. The investigation police have so far failed to round up the mastermind, Hassan Khan, and not entered the arrest of the two people.
Fayyaz Ahmad is actually Haseeb Akhtar, who dodged the police during preliminary interrogation by giving false identification.
The bank sources revealed that one of the suspects had a huge amount of Rs30 million with him when he was handed over to the police, but this amount could not be brought into the record by the Rail Bazaar investigation team.
When contacted, investigation inspector Mian Khalid confirmed that no entry had so far been made in the police record about the arrest of the suspects. He said the matter was being interrogated and facts would come to light within a couple of days.
A senior bank official told this correspondent on the condition of anonymity that the investigation officer was in league with the gang and trying to sweep the matter under the carpet.
He said the suspect had filed an application with the police that the case registered against them was ‘unjustified’ because the matter should be forwarded to the local banking court.
|
|
|
|
