The Banking Mohtasib Pakistan has directed Muslim Commercial Bank Limited (MCB) to credit a complainant’s account with PKR 3,050,000 after finding that a branch manager unlawfully withdrew and misappropriated customers’ funds, according to the Ombudsman’s decision.
In a detailed finding, the Banking Mohtasib said bank records show the accused branch manager, identified in the order as Mr. Saeed Arif, was in possession of various customer cheques and used those instruments to make fraudulent withdrawals. The decision states Mr. Arif submitted fake Term Deposit applications bearing his signature, affixed branch transfer stamps, and issued cheques purportedly on behalf of customers rather than actually placing term deposits. The Ombudsman also found that funds from instruments received from other banks were credited to an account that belonged not to the true beneficiary but to the manager’s nephew, Mr. Muneeb Nasir. The ruling notes Mr. Saeed Arif operated Mr. Nasir’s account through use of VDCs and cheques.
The report further records that the same branch manager is the subject of an FIR lodged at another branch and that bank staff members were dismissed for violating the bank’s code of conduct. The Banking Mohtasib characterises the total amount unlawfully taken by the branch manager in this matter as PKR 3.050 million the sum the Ombudsman has ordered returned to the complainant.
Exercising powers under Section 82-D of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962 and Section 9 of the Federal Ombudsman Institutional Reform Act, 2013, the Ombudsman accepted the complaint and directed MCB to credit the complainant’s account with PKR 3,050,000 “along with any applicable service charges” and to report compliance to the office of the Banking Mohtasib. The decision emphasises established legal principles that an employer is vicariously liable for fraud or wrongdoing carried out by employees during the course of their employment.
MCB has been ordered to comply and report back to the Ombudsman. The bank did not provide an immediate public comment in the Ombudsman’s published order; a formal response from the bank will clarify what disciplinary, criminal or remedial measures it has taken beyond staff dismissals referenced in the decision.