A sub-committee of the National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Finance chaired by Shezra Mansab has directed the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) to share a list of 100 Pakistanis who own property in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) estimated at 8 billion dollars with the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) with, one would assume, the objective of determining whether the money was transferred legally and if so whether tax was paid on it. The sub-committee noted that 8 billion dollars of real estate owned by Pakistanis was information released by the Dubai Land Authority and hence was in all probability authentic. To put this in perspective, 8 billion dollars in rupee terms is 105.4 billion if the inter-bank rate is considered and 107.20 billion if the open market rate is applied – an amount which is equivalent to 15 percent of total federal Public Sector Development Programme for 2016-17 and a whopping 50 percent that is estimated to be collected under property and enterprise, a non-tax revenue, by the federal government in the current fiscal year.

The FIA in response to the query by the sub-committee members made an outrageous statement namely that a list of 100 Pakistanis who own property in Dubai was obtained from ‘a source’ but its queries from the Dubai government have not been responded to. The reference by the FIA appears to be to a single source who provided the list, a credible source one would assume with access to the relevant data either directly (a whistle blower) or indirectly (given that the Panama and Paradise Papers are an outcome of hacking); however, what is baffling is why the FIA needed to reconfirm the information with the UAE authorities. It is pathetically ludicrously to seek reconfirmation from authorities who would understandably refuse to confirm the list as they are direct beneficiaries of the massive investment by Pakistanis in their real estate sector – investments which the UAE proactively seeks worldwide. Perhaps the FIA officials need to revisit the basics of how to conduct an investigation wherein neither the accused nor the beneficiary would be tempted to voluntarily provide assistance simply after writing a letter requesting confirmation.

It is unclear whether the FIA wrote to the UAE authorities in the context of a Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA), an agreement between two or more countries for the purpose of gathering and exchanging information in an effort to enforce public or criminal laws. It bears reminding that the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) set up by the apex court in the Panama Papers case against former premier Nawaz Sharif and his three children did write to several countries under MLA and received information which is contained in Volume X that has not yet been released to the public. More recently, an official of the National Accountability Bureau stated that it had access to actionable evidence in 17 communications from 6 countries with respect to investigating charges against Nawaz Sharif, his three children as well as Ishaq Dar, the incumbent Finance Minister: from central authority of Switzerland, the British Virgin Islands, British government, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Luxembourg and, last but not least, the UAE. However, while the latter did respond to the query from the JIT with respect to Azizia Steel Company, Capital FZA and Hill Metal Establishment yet it has not done so in the case of the properties owned by Pakistanis in the UAE.

To conclude, the FIA must understand that the concept of investigation does not entail sitting in office and writing letters seeking information and if the information is denied then to give up the investigation. FIA may be well advised to look at the United Nations Development Programme guidelines for investigation which are as follows: “An investigation is the process of planning and conducting appropriate lines of inquiry to obtain the evidence required to objectively determine the factual basis of allegations. This will include: (i) interviewing people with relevant information and recording their testimony; (ii) obtaining documents and other evidence; (iii) conducting financial and IT analysis; (iv) evaluating information and evidence; and (v) reporting and making recommendations".