High Court order sheds light on Dan Andersson’s fraud in Pakistan
A High Court order has provided insight into why LEO owner Dan Andersson can’t leave the country.
Turns out Andersson’s years of scamming the Pakistani public have come back to haunt him.
The recent but undated High Court judgement pertains to an April 22nd hearing.
The case was filed by LEO owner Dan Andersson (cited as Dan Gunnar Bjarne Anderson), against Pakistani authorities including the Federation of Pakistan, the Ministry of the Interior and three other parties.
The case pertains to a regulatory investigation into Unaico, a pyramid scheme Andersson launched prior to LEO.
According to “facts” cited in the High Court order, Andersson launched Unaico Pakistan in March 2012.
Andersson owned 99% of the Unaico Pakistan, through which he ‘induced members of the general public to invest in a scheme‘.
As part of their investigation, Pakistani authorities maintain Andersson soliciting investment through Unaico Pakistan was
not covered under the objects for which the Company had been incorporated and explicitly stated in the (company’s) Memorandum.
In other words, Dan Andersson was committing securities fraud through a company that was not registered to offer securities in Pakistan.
Unaico Pakistan eventually caught the attention of the Pakistani SEC, who initiated proceedings against Andersson.
Andersson attempted to settle proceedings by offering a “voluntary winding up of the company”, however this was rejected by the SEC.
By this stage Unaico had already collapsed. Offering to wind the shell incorporation down amid widespread investor losses was a superficial gesture.
In parallel with SEC proceedings, the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) launched a separate investigation into Andersson.
This lead to Andersson and his partner Atif Kamran offering to refund Unaico victims.
Andersson refused to provide the NAB with access to Unaico Pakistan’s financial records.
Instead, the compensatory figure Andersson and Kamran arrived at was submitted via affidavit.
In the affidavit Andersson represented Unaico Pakistan stole Rs. 98.01 million from investors ($1.37 million USD).
The affidavit submission was tendered to the NAB and approved in January, 2013.
As part of the settlement, Andersson was absolved of Unaico affiliate losses and permitted to leave Pakistan.
Despite representing he’d paid back all of Unaico’s victims in Pakistan, complaints from the public continued to pour in.
Over the next few years the NAB recorded over two thousand additional Unaico victim claims from the public.
This saw the case against Andersson reopened.
By this time Andersson had long-since left Pakistan and was promoting LEO.
It wasn’t until March 2018 that Andersson returned to Pakistan. After his trip and as he attempted to leave the country, authorities stopped him and confiscated his passport.
As a precautionary measure, the NAB had placed Andersson on Pakistan’s Exit Control List.
The High Court Order pertains to an “instant petition” Andersson filed, which seeks to have his name removed from Pakistan’s Exit Control List.
In a nutshell, Andersson wants to flee Pakistan again. This is so that he doesn’t have to face the thousands of Unaico victims he scammed.
Andersson’s lawyer argued because the previous settlement was accepted by the NAB, that new proceedings could not be filed.
His attorney also contends that the thousands of new claims are fake, and that funds paid by Andersson to resolve the initial batch of claims were “misappropriated” by the NAB.
The NAB counter by claiming the renewed investigation is valid because Andersson submitted a “false affidavit”, in which he failed to disclose his “entire liability”.
The NAB oppose Andersson’s petition on the grounds if he’s allowed to flee Pakistan, they won’t be able to conclude their proceedings.
The High Court sided with the NAB. It ruled that in order for a voluntary return settlement to be “valid and binding”, it has to be ‘based on a full and complete disclosure of all the assets and entire gains made‘.
The Court rejected the argument that acceptance of Andersson’s initial offer automatically invalidated further proceedings.
In the case in hand, the petitioner, who is a foreign national, was alleged to have induced members of the general public to invest in a sham scheme and thus he was alleged to have committed the offence of cheating the public at large.
While the inquiry was pending the petitioner made a voluntary offer to return the gains.
It was, therefore, akin to an admission to the commission of the offence.
He was required to make a full and complete disclosure of the entire gains made during the course or in consequence of the commission of the offence.
After his discharge, the Bureau has received a large number of claims from members of the public.
This, prima facie, indicates that at the time of making the offer the petitioner had not made a full and complete disclosure of all the assets or gains acquired.
The order provides the NAB ninety days to determine whether or not to pursue proceedings against Andersson. In the meantime, Andersson remains on Pakistan’s Exit Control List.
Given the NAB have been pursuing Andersson on renewed charges since 2018, based on thousands of unresolved Unaico victim claims, I don’t see why they’d drop the case.
Also at issue is whether or not LEO is being investigated. As far as I know, Andersson hasn’t disclosed the extent of his legal troubles to LEO affiliates.
With LEO investor losses mounting (Andersson’s only connection to Pakistan is promotion of fraudulent schemes), I feel it’s going to be dejavu for LEO victims in a few years.
Only this time, weary of being thrown in the slammer, Andersson is unlikely to return to Pakistan again.