NAB opens investigations into Farah Khan case
Islamabad: The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Thursday opened an investigation against Farah Khan, a close friend of former first lady Bushra Bibi, amid allegation of huge financial corruption under Imran Khan government.
A statement issued by the NAB on indicated that the probe could spread to “others” as well. According to the spokesperson of NAB, Farah Khan’s assets have increased after 2018 for “unknown reason.” In the last 3 years, Farah Khan’s bank account received Rs847 million in deposits, but this amount did not match her tax returns, the spokesperson said in a statement.
The money was transferred to Farah Khan’s personal account at different times and was immediately withdrawn. She made nine trips to the United States and six to the United Arab Emirates during this period.
In this regard, the DG NAB Lahore was directed to investigate assets beyond income and money laundering charges against Farah Khan. The NAB say the probe is being conducted as per the law.
Earlier this week, it was revealed that Farah Khan was transferred in her name Islamabad real estate worth billions of rupee from the son of a property tycoon.
Separately, the excise department records surfaced and showed that Farah Khan and her husband Ahsan Jameel Gujjar own as many as 19 vehicles, including the two most expensive Porsche.
According to the excise department, 12 vehicles have been registered in the name of Farhat Shahzadi alias Farah Khan. While seven sedan cars are registered under the name of her husband Ahsan Jameel Gujjar.
The NAB statement issued on Thursday also referred to the media reports involving Farah Khan. The statement also indicated that the probe could spread to others.
“NAB has authorized an inquiry against Farhat Shahzadi (Alias Farah Khan) and others on the allegations of accumulation of illegal assets beyond known sources of income, money laundering and maintaining various accounts in the name of different businesses,” the statement read.
The accountability body did not make it clear what it meant by “others” in the statement.