After years of legal proceedings, accusations, and public controversy, the case filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) against Mir Mohammad Ali Khan had reached its conclusion in August 2022. The Special Court (Offences in Banks) Sindh at Karachi dismissed the charges, clearing his name and bringing an end to a prolonged legal battle.
The SECP’s complaint had triggered significant attention, especially considering Mir Mohammad AliKhan prominent presence on social media as a financial commentator. With this decision, the court has made its position clear after thoroughly reviewing the case.
SECP Accused Mir Mohammad AliKhan of Stock Market Manipulation
The case originated from accusations made by the SECP against Mir Mohammad Ali Khan.
According to the SECP, Mir Mohammad AliKhan was allegedly involved in manipulating the stock market through a practice commonly referred to as a “pump and dump” scheme. They claimed that he would purchase shares of certain companies, use his social media influence to promote those stocks, and once the price increased due to heightened demand from his followers, he would sell his shares for personal gain.
The SECP argued that through this method, Mir Mohammad AliKhan earned approximately Rs 58 million over a six-month period. The regulator viewed this conduct as a violation of the Securities Act, 2015, stating that such actions mislead small investors and distort fair trading in the stock market.
SECP Filed a Formal Complaint in 2017
Following its investigation, the SECP filed a formal complaint against Mir Mohammad Ali Khan. The case was registered in 2017 at the Special Court (Offences in Banks), Sindh, Karachi. After reviewing the complaint, the court admitted the case and framed charges against him on September 9, 2017.
From the very start, Mir Mohammad AliKhan pleaded not guilty to the charges and expressed full confidence in the legal process. He maintained that he had done nothing wrong and was ready to face trial to clear his name.
Four Years of Trial, But Prosecution Failed to Present Evidence
Once the trial officially began, the responsibility shifted to the prosecution to present evidence and witnesses that could substantiate the accusations. The SECP originally listed six witnesses to support its case. However, throughout the trial, only three witnesses actually appeared before the court. Despite repeated court orders, summons, and even warrants, the remaining three witnesses failed to attend.
The court made numerous efforts to ensure the attendance of these witnesses. Summons, bailable warrants, and non-bailable warrants were issued several times, but these efforts proved unsuccessful. The SECP’s legal representatives were unable to provide the court with any convincing explanation for the repeated absences of their key witnesses.
Mir Mohammad AliKhan Fully Cooperated Throughout the Trial
Throughout the four-year trial period, Mir Mohammad AliKhan regularly appeared before the court and cooperated fully with the legal process. He never requested unnecessary adjournments or engaged in any delaying tactics. His consistent presence in court demonstrated his commitment to addressing the charges openly.
The court acknowledged that there was no fault on the part of the accused that contributed to the repeated delays. Instead, it was the prosecution’s inability to present its case in full that prolonged the proceedings.
Court Concludes That Further Trial is Futile
After years of stagnant progress, the court evaluated the situation carefully. It recognized that continuing the case without the prosecution’s remaining witnesses would be meaningless. The presiding judge noted that dragging the accused through an indefinite trial without progress would be unfair and go against the basic principles of justice.
Given the circumstances, the court ruled that the trial should be stopped. In August 2022, the Special Court officially halted the proceedings under Section 249 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C). While the prosecution technically retains the option to reopen the case if its witnesses become available in the future, the dismissal effectively clears Mir Mohammad AliKhan of the charges.
Years of Public Accusations Finally Addressed
The dismissal carries major significance for Mir Mohammad AliKhan, who had faced public scrutiny since the SECP’s allegations surfaced. Accusations involving financial fraud, especially those said to involve small investors, can damage reputations severely, even before any court ruling.
Now, with this legal decision, Mir Mohammad AliKhan position has been confirmed; the prosecution failed to prove any wrongdoing. This formal closure allows him to move forward without the shadow of these allegations hanging over him.
Mir Mohammad AliKhan Consistently Denied Any Wrongdoing
Throughout the investigation and trial, Mir Mohammad AliKhan firmly denied the accusations. He consistently challenged the SECP to produce solid evidence and even publicly invited them to verify his financial accounts. According to him, neither he nor his family had received any such illegal financial gains as alleged by the SECP.
He argued that his independent financial opinions and critical views of certain market practices might have made him a target. The court’s dismissal of the charges aligns with his longstanding position that the accusations were baseless.
Case Collapsed Due to Prosecution’s Inability to Prove Charges
The court’s decision was based purely on the prosecution’s failure to provide evidence, not on any technical errors or legal loopholes. After years of delays, it became clear that the SECP was unable to present the necessary witnesses to support its case. In any fair legal system, accusations must be backed by proof, and in this instance, that burden was not met.
Legal Vindication After a Long Ordeal
The closure of this case in August 2022 ended a long chapter filled with public accusations and legal uncertainty. After enduring years of legal proceedings, Mir Mohammad Ali Khan’s name was cleared, and his innocence was established through the judicial process.
The case stands as a reminder that serious financial accusations carry heavy responsibility for those making them, and that justice ultimately depends on facts presented in court.