LAHORE: A judicial magistrate on Friday granted the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) a further four-day physical remand of the prime suspect in a Rs35 billion fraud involving the online sale of counterfeit US postage stamps.

The NCCIA produced suspect Faheem Akram and his co-suspect, Naeem, before the court after their previous four-day remand expired.

The investigating officer (IO) sought further custody of the suspects for interrogation.

Magistrate Naeem Wattoo granted the agency’s request and extended the physical remand of both suspects by four days.

The IO was directed to produce the suspects again on Nov 3.

The initial investigation revealed that the suspect had allegedly been operating a website since August 2023 through which he sold more than five million counterfeit US postage labels online.

According to the US Department of Justice, Akram was indicted by a federal grand jury in Florida in September 2026 over the alleged sale of more than 5.1 million counterfeit postage labels, which prosecutors say caused losses of more than $126 million to the US Postal Service.

US prosecutors allege that the website sold the labels for around $2 each, regardless of the weight, size or destination of a package. A US court order authorised the seizure and shutdown of the website.

The NCCIA had arrested the suspect, a resident of Khanewal, in Lahore.

Money trail

In a press conference on Oct 20, NCCIA’s Lahore Zone Additional Director Atif Ameer said that 16 bank accounts had been used in the scam. Seven of the accounts were operated by the suspect, five by his brother, two by his wife, and one each by his sister and aunt.

He said the agency had expanded the investigation across several parts of the country.

“Eight special teams were formed in Punjab, Islamabad and Sindh to trace the suspect and investigate the network,” he said and added the teams conducted raids at 35 locations and questioned 47 people as part of the investigation.

“Investigators also employed digital and forensic techniques to establish the suspect’s movements and identify people associated with the operation.”

Ameer added that investigators analysed 122 call-data records, 50 IMEI-tracking reports and audio and video recordings from 120 cameras.

“Artificial intelligence and other modern technological tools were also used during the investigation. A locator operation continued for 10 days as investigators attempted to establish the suspect’s whereabouts and trace his activities,” he said.

The NCCIA said the major focus of the investigation was the financial trail generated by the online sale of the counterfeit stamps.

“We are examining transactions conducted through the 16 bank accounts and attempting to determine the flow of funds between the accounts allegedly belonging to the suspect and his relatives.

“The involvement of family members is also being examined as part of the investigation, particularly the alleged use of their bank accounts in connection with the online business,” the additional director said.

He said the role of other individuals in operating the website, processing orders, receiving payments or distributing the counterfeit stamps was also being probed.

“Investigators are also working to establish the full scale of the operation and verify the volume and value of the transactions,” he said.

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court on Friday directed the counsel for Noreen Niazi, sister of former prime minister and PTI founder Imran Khan, to file a separate miscellaneous application seeking medical treatment and family meetings.

On Wednesday evening, Noreen was shifted to the Punjab Institute of Cardiology (PIC) following her deteriorating health conditions, on the recommendation of the doctors of the Kot Lakhpat Jail, where she has been detained.

Justice Abher Gul Khan issued the direction while hearing a petition filed by Sakeena Niazi challenging the extension of the preventive detention of PTI founder Imran Khan’s two sisters, Noreen and Dr Uzma Khan.

The judge asked the petitioner’s counsel whether an application had been filed seeking permission for medical treatment and meetings with family members.

Advocate Rana Mudassar Umar, counsel for the petitioner, replied that an application to this effect had been submitted to the deputy commissioner.

The judge directed the counsel to also file a separate civil miscellaneous application with the court. The counsel argued that there was no lawful justification for extending the detention of the two women.

He said Noreen, 70, had never suffered from a heart ailment before.

Questioning the circumstances that led to her hospitalisation, Advocate Umar asked what kind of pressure had been exerted on her during detention that she had to be taken to hospital.

He argued that the fresh detention orders were replicas of the previous ones, with only the dates changed. He further argued that suspending the detention notification would pave the way for the women’s release.

PTI Secretary General Advocate Salman Akram Raja, who was also present in court, claimed that Noreen was ill and had been shifted to the hospital’s intensive care unit.

However, neither her family members nor her lawyer had been allowed to meet her, he added. He said he was unaware whether she was still in hospital or had been shifted back to jail.

Asked whether the home secretary, who was abroad, had returned to the country, Additional Advocate General Nasir Chohan said he would check and inform the court.

Another petition, filed by Shahrez Khan challenging the detention of his mother, Aleema Khan, is yet to be fixed for a hearing.

Imran’s sisters were detained by authorities in September, under Section 3 of the MPO, as the PTI geared up for a planned protest march towards Islamabad.

Their detention was ordered for 30 days and would have expired on Oct 19 for Aleema and Oct 20 for Uzma and Noreen. However, they remained in jail, and the government later informed the LHC that their detentions had been extended on Oct 7.

On Sept 24, the LHC had turned down a request to immediately suspend the preventive detention notifications issued against Noreen and Dr Uzma.

Earlier this month, Imran’s cousin, Qasim Zaman, was also taken into custody when he went to Adiala jail to meet the ex-prime minister.

The detention had come amid reports of a crackdown on the PTI ahead of its countrywide protest and march to Islamabad, which the party had called to demand Imran’s release from jail and mobilise people for the supremacy of the Constitution.

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has held that merely uploading an appellate order to the Federal Board of Revenue’s (FBR) Inland Revenue Information System (IRIS) does not constitute valid service under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.

An LHC division bench comprising Justice Mirza Viqas Rauf and Justice Anwaar Hussain decided three connected reference applications led by Tahir Mehmood.

The applications challenged three orders of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, which had dismissed the taxpayers’ appeals as time-barred on the ground that uploading the orders to IRIS constituted sufficient service.

In one case, the taxpayer argued that Covid-19 and quarantine following a foreign trip had prevented him from accessing the portal. In the other two cases, the taxpayers said they learned of the Commissioner (Appeals)’ orders only after receiving recovery notices in April 2026, months after the orders had been passed.

Justice Anwaar Hussain, who authored the judgement, held that Section 218(1)(d) of the ordinance recognises electronic service only when carried out in the prescribed manner.

He observed that Rule 74 of the Income Tax Rules limits an electronic addr­e­ss to a fax number or an email address and requi­res confirmation of transmission.

IRIS, by contrast, is an internal, web-based workflow system for tax administration, the judge noted, adding that placing an order in a taxpayer’s account does not establish its transmission to an electronic address as required under the rule.

The judge distinguished between accessibility and service, observing that an order may be accessible wi­­thout having been served in accordance with the law.

He further held that the limitation period could not begin from an event that the law did not recognise as its starting point.

Rejecting the department’s argument that Rule 74 could not restrict the parent provision, the jud­ge said the requirement of service in the “prescribed manner” was part of the ordinance itself.

The judge also dismissed the contention that taxpayers were required to routinely monitor IRIS.

The judge said the dep­artment could not dismiss the pandemic-related exp­lanation, as the corre­ct­n­ess of the tribunal’s conclusion involved a question of law that the high court was competent to examine.

Observing that technology was an instrument of statutory administration ra­­ther than an independent source of statutory au­­thority, the judge said mo­­d­ernisation could not disp­ense with legal safeguards.

The court referred to rulings of the Peshawar and Islamabad high courts and the Delhi High Court, as well as Articles 4 and 10A of the Constitution.

The bench set aside the impugned orders and dire­cted the tribunal to decide the appeals afresh on merit.

Published in Dawn, October 30th, 2026