Where Pakistan reports

If you have lost money to an investment app or platform, there are channels to report it. This page says who receives what, what to bring, and what they can and cannot do. It does not promise recovery.

The SECP's complaint channel

The Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan receives complaints about securities and corporate matters. If a platform claims to offer shares, bonds, or other securities, and is not authorised, you can complain to the SECP. The SECP has a complaint form on its website.

Bring the platform's name, the dates of your transactions, the amounts, and any screenshots. The SECP may investigate and may issue an investor alert. However, the SECP does not recover money for individual investors, and it does not give legal advice.

The State Bank's consumer channel

The State Bank of Pakistan receives complaints about banks and wallet providers. If you paid through a bank or a mobile wallet, and you have a dispute with the provider, you can complain to the State Bank's consumer protection department. The State Bank can require the provider to respond.

Bring the transaction ID, the receiver's number and name, and the provider's response. The State Bank does not investigate the platform itself, but it can look at whether the provider followed its rules. It cannot reverse a payment that was authorised.

Federal cybercrime authorities

The federal cybercrime authorities receive complaints about online fraud. If you believe you were defrauded by an investment app, you can report it to the cybercrime wing. They can investigate and may take action against the operators. Bring all evidence: payment records, screenshots, and any communication.

The cybercrime authorities do not recover money, but they can prosecute. The process can be slow, and you may need to follow up. You should also report to the wallet provider and the SECP, because each has a different role.

The wallet provider's own complaint line

The wallet provider has its own complaint line. You can call or write to the provider to report a fraudulent transaction. The provider may block the receiver's account and may share information with authorities. You should ask for a complaint reference number.

Bring the transaction ID and the receiver's number. The provider may ask for a police report or a cybercrime report, so it is useful to file those first. The provider cannot reverse a completed payment, but it can take action on the account.

What to bring to any complaint

For any complaint, bring the payment trail: transaction ID, receiver's number and name, date and time. Bring screenshots of the platform's promises, its app, and any messages. Bring your own notes on what happened. The more detail you have, the easier it is for the authority to act.

Do not rely on memory. Write down everything as soon as you can. Keep copies of all documents, and note the names of any officials you speak to. The complaint process may take time, and you may need to repeat your story.

What the channels cannot promise

None of these channels can promise to recover your money. The SECP can issue alerts and take regulatory action, but it does not compensate investors. The State Bank can discipline providers, but it does not reverse authorised payments. The cybercrime authorities can prosecute, but they do not return funds.

The wallet provider can block accounts, but it cannot force the receiver to return money unless there is a court order. Recovery, if it happens, usually comes from a civil case, which is separate from these complaints. This site does not promise recovery.

The complaint route for an investment app starts with the wallet provider, not the regulator

When money leaves a Pakistani mobile wallet for a task or package app, the wallet provider is the first institution that can trace the movement. The provider holds the sender's account records, the receiver's account details, and the transaction log. A complaint to the wallet provider can freeze the receiving account or flag it for review. This is the fastest way to interrupt a payment chain before it continues.

The regulator's complaint channel handles the conduct of the investment platform, but it does not hold the wallet ledger. If a reader reports to the regulator first, the regulator will still ask for the wallet transaction details. Starting with the wallet provider produces a dated complaint reference, which the regulator then uses to open a parallel inquiry. The order matters because a wallet provider can act on fraud indicators immediately, while a regulatory inquiry takes longer.

A wallet provider cannot decide whether a platform is licensed, but it can suspend payouts to a flagged account. That suspension is a commercial decision, not a legal finding. Readers who report to the wallet provider should ask for a written confirmation of the complaint and the wallet provider's internal reference. That confirmation becomes part of the evidence bundle for any later regulatory or police complaint.

A wallet payment to an individual does not create a customer relationship with a firm

When a task app instructs a user to send money to a personal wallet number, the user is paying a person, not a brokerage or an investment firm. The Pakistan Stock Exchange's list of trading-right holders contains corporate entities, not individuals. A wallet ID in a person's name cannot appear on that list. The payment therefore does not establish any relationship with a licensed broker.

The wallet provider records the name on the receiving account, which may be a person's name or a business name registered with the wallet provider. That name is not the same as the entity's legal registration with the SECP. A platform that receives money through personal wallet IDs is operating outside the settlement mechanisms that licensed brokers use. Licensed brokers settle trades through bank accounts in the firm's name, not through individual wallets.

If a platform claims to trade shares on the reader's behalf and asks for payment to a personal wallet, that claim conflicts with the exchange's requirement that client funds be received in the firm's own bank account. The reader can ask the platform for its bank account details in the firm's name. If the platform refuses or continues to use a personal wallet, the payment trail will show that the money went to an individual, which the regulator treats as a red flag.

The FIA's cybercrime wing accepts complaints about online fraud after a wallet trail exists

The Federal Investigation Agency's cybercrime reporting portal accepts complaints about online financial fraud, but it asks for a transaction record. A reader who has only a screenshot of a balance in an app has no transaction to report. The FIA needs a wallet payment receipt, a bank transfer record, or a card charge that shows money leaving the reader's control. Without that, the complaint is incomplete.

The FIA's jurisdiction includes offences under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, which covers unauthorised access to data and fraudulent online activity. A task app that locks a user's balance and demands a further deposit may fall under that Act. The FIA can request the wallet provider to preserve the receiving account's records. That preservation order stops the account holder from deleting the transaction history.

A complaint to the FIA does not replace a complaint to the wallet provider or the SECP. The FIA investigates the criminal aspect, the wallet provider handles the account freeze, and the SECP checks the platform's licensing claim. The three channels run in parallel, and each requires the same evidence: the wallet receipt, the platform's name, and the claim it made. Readers should send the same bundle to all three.

The State Bank's consumer channel covers wallet errors, not investment losses

The State Bank of Pakistan's consumer protection department handles complaints about banks, microfinance banks, and electronic money institutions, including mobile wallet providers. Its remit covers unauthorised transactions, failed transfers, and wallet account errors. It does not handle complaints about an investment platform's failure to return profits. That is outside its jurisdiction.

If a wallet provider refuses to register a complaint or fails to respond within the required time, the State Bank's channel can compel the provider to address the matter. The State Bank can also direct the provider to reverse a transaction if the provider failed to follow its own customer verification rules. But the State Bank cannot order the investment platform to refund money, because the platform is not a regulated financial institution under its supervision.

A reader who complains to the State Bank should describe the wallet provider's failure, not the platform's conduct. For example, if the provider allowed a payment to an unverified account, that is a State Bank matter. If the provider processed a payment despite a fraud warning, that is also a State Bank matter. The investment platform's behaviour is for the SECP or the FIA.

A complaint to the platform itself is a record, not a resolution

Before or alongside a regulator complaint, a reader may message the platform's in-app support or its WhatsApp number. That message creates a record of the reader's demand and the platform's response. The platform may promise to release funds after a further deposit, or it may stop replying. Either response is evidence of the platform's conduct, which the reader should screenshot and save.

The platform's support channel is not an independent dispute resolution body. It is operated by the same people who control the wallet receiving the deposits. A promise from support that the balance will be released after a 'verification deposit' is not a guarantee. Many readers report that after sending the additional deposit, the support channel goes silent. The platform's own reply is useful only as proof of what was demanded.

When a reader reports to the SECP or the FIA, they should include the platform's replies. A reply that asks for more money to unlock a withdrawal is a strong indicator of the platform's structure. The regulator can use that reply to show that the platform is not providing a legitimate investment service. The reader should not expect the platform's support channel to resolve the matter; it exists to manage complaints, not to satisfy them.

The complaint file should separate what happened from what the platform promised

A clear complaint file has two parts: a chronology of events and a set of promises. The chronology lists each deposit with its date, wallet ID, and amount, but this site does not print numbers; the reader records them on their own sheet. The promises are the platform's claims: guaranteed returns, locked withdrawals, bonus tasks. The regulator reads the promises against the platform's actual behaviour.

The chronology should include every interaction: the first app download, the first deposit, the first withdrawal request, and every support message. If the platform changed its rules after a deposit, that change is part of the chronology. The reader should note when the platform's terms changed, because a change that makes withdrawal harder after a deposit is a pattern the regulator recognises.

The promises part of the file should distinguish between what the platform said before the deposit and what it said after. Before the deposit, the platform may have promised easy withdrawals. After the deposit, it may have demanded a referral or a higher package. That shift is the core of a complaint. The regulator does not need the reader to interpret the shift; it needs the reader to show the two statements side by side.

A complaint filed with one authority does not automatically reach the others

Each regulator keeps its own record. The SECP sees complaints about companies and capital market activity. The State Bank sees complaints about banks, wallets, and payment systems. The Federal Investigation Agency sees reports of cybercrime. None of them forwards a complaint to the others as a matter of routine. The person reporting has to decide which channel fits the loss, and often a single app loss touches all three.

The order in which complaints are filed affects what evidence each authority can see. A wallet provider can freeze a disputed transaction while it is still recent. The State Bank can ask the provider to explain a merchant account. The SECP can check whether a name appears on its own alert list. If the first report goes only to the FIA, the provider may not learn of the dispute until much later.

A reader who sends the same complaint to all three channels on the same day creates three separate files. Each office will respond from its own mandate. One may ask for the wallet transaction ID. Another may ask for the app's full name and the phone number used to register it. The third may ask for the bank account that funded the wallet. No single office will join the pieces unless the complainant brings them together.