The Real Story of the £190 Million Scandal

The unfolding revelations surrounding the £190 million corruption scandal have placed former Asset Recovery Unit (ARU) Chairman and ex-Special Assistant to the Prime Minister on Accountability, Mirza Shehzad Akbar, at the centre of what may be one of the most damaging financial scandals in Pakistan’s history. With detailed investigations and media reports, including a recent expose by the Daily Independent, it is now apparent that this case is not merely about administrative irregularities but about a calculated abuse of power, misuse of public office, and betrayal of public trust.

According to the available record, Shehzad Akbar signed a Deal of Confidentiality on 6 November 2019, weeks before the federal cabinet was even made aware of the matter. This agreement formed the basis of a covert financial arrangement that facilitated the transfer of £190 million from a Bahria Town Karachi liability account to a designated account under the name of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The account was misrepresented as belonging to the State Bank of Pakistan. This deceptive labelling raises serious questions about the intent and integrity of those involved.

The co-accused in the case, Zia Mustafa Naseem, also signed the same deed, and the funds were portrayed as state-owned despite being private liabilities of Bahria Town. Instead of the recovered funds being deposited in Pakistan’s treasury or used for public benefit, they were utilized to fulfil Bahria Town’s obligations, including the settlement of penalties imposed by the Supreme Court in a separate legal matter. This strategic redirection of funds amounts to the laundering of recovered corruption money through a disguised legal process.

Throughout 2019, Shehzad Akbar made multiple visits to the United Kingdom where he met with senior officials from the British Home Office and the National Crime Agency (NCA). It was during these visits, according to investigative sources, that he devised a confidential plan for the return of the funds. What is particularly troubling is that major oversight institutions such as the Federal Board of Revenue, the Federal Investigation Agency, and the State Bank of Pakistan were deliberately excluded from these negotiations. This exclusion not only undermined institutional transparency but also eliminated any chance of meaningful scrutiny or intervention.

Evidence has now emerged that Shehzad Akbar, in collaboration with then-Prime Minister  and his principal secretary Azam Khan, held meetings as early as March 2019 to discuss a settlement with the NCA and the repatriation of the seized funds. This coordination took place entirely outside of the formal jurisdiction of the Asset Recovery Unit and was never disclosed to the public or the cabinet at the time. In fact, while Akbar presented the agreement to the cabinet on 3 December 2019, he withheld the critical detail that he had already committed the state to a secret deal nearly a month earlier.

According to British legal documents and NCA findings, the original seizure of funds was made under the UK Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, following suspicions against Pakistani nationals Ali Riaz Malik and Mubashara Malik. These funds were intended to be returned to Pakistan as part of a broader anti-corruption cooperation agreement. However, the way the funds were diverted raises questions about the sincerity of Pakistan’s asset recovery efforts and the motives of those tasked with leading them.

The Daily Independent report confirms that Shehzad Akbar has now been declared an absconder, and the National Accountability Bureau, along with other agencies, continues its investigations. Legal proceedings are underway, and international coordination is being sought to bring the accused to justice. But accountability in such cases must go beyond merely naming scapegoats or issuing symbolic indictments. It must examine the systems and legal gaps that allowed a senior government official to single-handedly negotiate, conceal, and implement a transaction of this magnitude without institutional oversight.

The scandal serves as a wake-up call. For Pakistan to restore domestic and international confidence, it must establish mechanisms that prevent such unilateral decisions in the future. Transparency must be embedded into the asset recovery process, and all negotiations involving foreign jurisdictions should be subject to institutional checks. Allowing powerful individuals to operate behind closed doors, under the guise of state interest, risks turning accountability into a selective weapon rather than a principle of governance.

The £190 million case is not just a story about one individual. It reflects how power, when unchecked, can be used to benefit private interests while the public pays the price. Pakistan now stands at a crossroads. Either it reforms and reclaims control of its governance, or it continues down a path where justice is conditional, and corruption is quietly legitimized through official channels. The choice, as always, will depend not just on institutions, but on the political will to act with courage and transparency.