Mutual legal assistance: when foreign evidence enters Pakistani proceedings

White-collar cases no longer respect borders, and neither does the evidence. A Pakistani prosecution may turn on a Dubai bank statement, a UK company filing, or a Swiss account-opening form. A foreign prosecution may turn on records held in Karachi. The legal machinery that moves this material is mutual legal assistance, and since 2020 Pakistan has had a statute for it. This briefing explains how the pipeline works as of June 2026, and — because most of our work sits on the receiving end — how foreign evidence is challenged once it arrives.

Before 2020: improvisation

For decades Pakistan had no general mutual legal assistance law. Requests moved through bilateral treaties where they existed, through Commonwealth arrangements, and through letters of request issued under the commission provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure [relevant CrPC provisions — TO BE VERIFIED BY REVIEWING LAWYER]. The National Accountability Ordinance 1999 gave the Bureau its own channel: section 21 authorises requests to foreign states for evidence, documents and assets in accountability cases, and material obtained under it featured heavily in the high-profile references of the last decade [admissibility treatment of section 21 material — CITATION TO BE VERIFIED]. The improvised system worked slowly and unevenly, and it was one of the deficiencies pressed on Pakistan during the FATF grey-listing period.

The Mutual Legal Assistance (Criminal Matters) Act 2020

The 2020 Act created a general framework for both directions of traffic. A central authority within the federal government receives, vets and transmits requests [designated authority — TO BE VERIFIED BY REVIEWING LAWYER]. Assistance no longer depends on a treaty: the Act permits cooperation on the basis of reciprocity, which materially widened the set of states Pakistan can work with. The Act covers the standard menu — service of documents, taking of evidence, production of business and banking records, search and seizure, and the freezing and forfeiture of assets — subject to grounds of refusal that include political-character offences and prejudice to sovereignty or public order [scope and refusal grounds — TO BE VERIFIED BY REVIEWING LAWYER].

Two features matter in practice. Dual criminality: assistance generally presupposes that the conduct is criminal in both states, which becomes a live argument where the foreign offence has no clean Pakistani counterpart. And speciality, or use limitation: material supplied for one investigation is not meant to be recycled into unrelated proceedings, a constraint defence counsel should police, not assume.

Intelligence is not evidence

The formal MLA channel is slow — months at best, often longer — so investigators use faster informal channels: financial-intelligence exchanges between the Financial Monitoring Unit and its foreign counterparts through the Egmont network, police-to-police cooperation, and Interpol requests. These channels are lawful and useful, but what moves through them is intelligence, not evidence. FMU material carries statutory confidentiality and is not designed to be exhibited in court [AML Act 2010 confidentiality provisions — TO BE VERIFIED BY REVIEWING LAWYER]. When a prosecution file contains foreign bank records with no MLA request behind them, the first question is where they came from, because material that entered the case through an intelligence channel usually has to be re-obtained through the formal one before it can be proved. Prosecutions have stumbled on exactly this gap.

Admissibility: the battle when it arrives

Foreign evidence obtained through MLA still has to survive the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The recurring battlegrounds are three.

Authentication. Foreign public documents and certified copies must be proved in the manner the Order prescribes, which in practice means certification by the foreign authority and attestation through consular or comparable channels [applicable articles of the Qanun-e-Shahadat — TO BE VERIFIED BY REVIEWING LAWYER]. A bank statement printed from a PDF attached to an email is not an authenticated foreign record, whatever its provenance.

Chain and completeness. The defence is entitled to trace the document from the foreign custodian to the Pakistani court: who requested it, who certified it, who transmitted it, and whether the set produced is complete or curated. Gaps in that chain are cross-examination material at least and exclusion arguments at best.

The maker. A document proves its own existence more easily than the truth of its contents. Where the contents are contested, the absence of any witness from the foreign institution — no bank officer, no registrar — limits what the document can establish. Statutes ease this in places: the MLA Act and the NAB Ordinance both contain provisions facilitating the reception of material obtained from foreign states [precise admissibility provisions — TO BE VERIFIED BY REVIEWING LAWYER], but facilitation is not immunity from scrutiny, and the superior courts have insisted that foreign material be properly proved like any other evidence [CITATION — TO BE VERIFIED].

Outbound: when Pakistan is asked

The traffic runs both ways. Pakistani banks, companies and professional firms receive production orders that originate in foreign investigations routed through the central authority. Compliance is not optional once a domestic order issues, but the order's scope is contestable, and legal professional privilege and statutory banking confidentiality remain live objections to be taken before production, not after [TO BE VERIFIED BY REVIEWING LAWYER]. A Pakistani company that learns its records are sought by a foreign authority should treat that as notice of the foreign investigation itself and assess its own exposure accordingly. Extradition is a separate regime under the Extradition Act 1972 and follows different rules; an MLA request is not an extradition request, though the one often precedes the other.

What this means for you

If you are defending a case built on foreign documents, demand the paper trail first: the request, the foreign response, the certifications, and proof that the material came through a lawful channel rather than an intelligence shortcut. Test authentication before trial, not during it. If you are a company whose records have been requested — by either direction of traffic — take the request as the start of a matter, preserve documents, narrow the scope in writing, and raise privilege at the threshold. If you are pursuing assets or evidence abroad in aid of a Pakistani claim, budget realistic time for the MLA cycle and get the request drafted precisely, because vague requests are refused or answered narrowly. And in every case, keep the two channels straight in your own file: intelligence tells you where to look; only evidence, properly obtained and properly proved, decides a case.