Faisal Afzal

🚨🚨Top breaking Investigative Dossier from UK exposes massive black money scandals of Duraid Qureshi & his money laundering empire run under cover of Hum Awards An examination of official financial statements filed by HUM Network, records available through the Pakistan Stock Exchange, and corporate filings with the UK Companies House has raised serious questions about the financial practices of HUM Network and its CEO, Duraid Qureshi. The documents reveal a troubling pattern involving the valuation of overseas subsidiaries, undisclosed international event revenues, substantial inter-company balances, related-party payments, executive remuneration and tax adjustments. Taken together, these discrepancies raise fundamental questions about corporate governance, financial transparency and the treatment of public shareholders in a company listed on the Pakistan Stock Exchange. It is worth noting that Duraid Qureshi has successfully maintained a visible presence in influential institutional circles, including frequent visits to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MoIB) and ISPR. Such engagement has helped him maintain a cordial public and institutional profile. However, the financial practices reflected in the company’s filings raise serious questions that cannot be answered through personal relationships, public appearances or a carefully cultivated corporate image. The issue is whether the management of a publicly listed company has been operating in the best interests of its shareholders or using complicated domestic and overseas corporate arrangements in ways that require closer regulatory scrutiny. In September 2024, HUM Network organised an award show at London’s Wembley Arena. Subsequently, the company reduced the reported value of its 100% shareholding in its UK subsidiary, HUM Network UK, from PKR 95.9 million to zero, effectively recognising the entire investment as a loss in its Pakistani accounts while retaining full ownership of the subsidiary. What makes this write-down particularly questionable is that HUM Network’s UK sales increased by 22% during the same year, reaching PKR 334.3 million. How could the value of a wholly owned subsidiary be reduced to zero in the very year that business generated from the UK was growing substantially? Was this a genuine commercial loss, or does the accounting treatment warrant investigation? The UK company’s accounts filed by Duraid Qureshi in March 2026 reveal further financial inconsistencies. Its bank cash balance had nearly doubled to £377,000, while outstanding liabilities exceeded £3.2 million and accumulated losses reached £1.958 million. More importantly, the company’s public filings did not include a Profit and Loss Account. By relying on the reporting exemptions available to small companies under UK law, the subsidiary was not required to publish detailed income and expenditure figures and also obtained exemption from statutory audit. Consequently, the actual financial performance of the Wembley event, including ticket-sale proceeds, sponsorship income, operational expenses and ultimate profitability, cannot be independently established from the publicly available accounts. The financial treatment of inter-company transactions raises equally serious questions. After writing down the value of its UK subsidiary to zero, HUM Network’s Pakistani parent company also wrote off PKR 105.3 million owed by the same subsidiary, treating the outstanding trade receivable as irrecoverable. At the same time, the amount recorded as receivable from HUM Network’s Dubai-based subsidiary, HUM Network FZ LLC, increased from PKR 2.59 billion in 2024 to more than PKR 5.32 billion in 2026. This extraordinary increase warrants a detailed explanation regarding the nature of these transactions, the commercial purpose of the advances, the recovery arrangements and the ultimate location and utilisation of these funds. For a publicly listed Pakistani company, billions of rupees tied up in overseas subsidiaries cannot simply be treated as an internal accounting matter. The Wembley award show itself raises fundamental questions about revenue disclosure and financial transparency. Despite the event involving thousands of tickets, no corresponding breakdown of ticket-sale proceeds has been established through the publicly available records examined. The only specific entry identified in Brent Council’s official records relates to 10 complimentary tickets, valued at £450, provided to local councillor Ajmal Akram. This does not account for the wider ticketing operation or the event’s overall financial performance. Equally concerning are the accounts of Alliance Advertising, the UK agency responsible for sponsorship arrangements for the event. Its public filings did not disclose a Profit and Loss Account and showed £1.5 million in outstanding receivables at year-end, despite reporting a zero bank cash balance. These figures raise questions about the actual collection, transfer and accounting of sponsorship revenues. There is also no identifiable accounting entry, amount or receipt in the company’s annual report to substantiate the commitment associated with the 2022 Canada Awards Show to contribute ticket proceeds towards relief for Pakistan’s flood victims. Where did the promised contribution go, and what documentary evidence exists to establish that it was actually made? The domestic financial picture is equally revealing. During FY2025, HUM Network reported production expenses of PKR 7.68 billion and made payments amounting to PKR 2.47 billion to affiliated family-owned production entities, including MD Productions and Momina & Duraid Films, within a single financial year. These substantial related-party transactions raise questions about the commercial basis of the payments, the pricing of production services, the selection of vendors and the safeguards in place to protect ordinary shareholders. In other words, while the company reports substantial production costs and accounting losses, billions of rupees are being paid to entities affiliated with its own management and family business interests. These transactions deserve independent examination to establish whether they were conducted at arm’s length and in the genuine commercial interests of HUM Network. Perhaps the most striking contrast is Duraid Qureshi’s own remuneration. During FY2025, he received PKR 361.2 million in salary, bonuses and other benefits as CEO. This amounts to more than PKR 36 crore annually, or approximately PKR 3 crore per month when averaged across the year. While the company’s overseas investments and operations are being presented through substantial write-downs and accumulated losses, its chief executive continues to receive exceptionally high personal remuneration. The obvious question is why public shareholders should bear the financial consequences of questionable overseas investments and reported losses while the CEO continues to receive such substantial financial rewards. The distinction between corporate losses and executive earnings is particularly important: shareholders’ capital is exposed to the company’s financial risks, whereas executive remuneration may continue to be paid regardless of the performance of individual overseas ventures. Despite these substantial expenses and executive payouts, HUM Network’s parent company reported a net tax credit of PKR 25.2 million rather than an income tax liability, following accounting losses and adjustments. This raises further questions about the basis of the tax credit, the nature of the adjustments and whether the reported losses accurately reflect the underlying commercial performance of the business. The central issue is therefore not simply whether HUM Network has incurred losses. It is whether those losses, overseas financial arrangements, related-party payments and executive benefits have been properly accounted for and transparently disclosed to the company’s public shareholders. Why was the UK subsidiary valued at zero despite rising UK sales? Why was a substantial receivable from that subsidiary written off? Why have the amounts recorded against the Dubai subsidiary more than doubled? Where are the detailed revenue and expenditure accounts for the Wembley show? What happened to the ticketing and sponsorship proceeds? What documentary evidence supports the promised contribution to Pakistan’s flood victims? And what independent safeguards ensure that billions of rupees paid to family-affiliated production companies represent genuine, fairly priced commercial transactions? There is also a fundamental question of accountability: how can a CEO of a publicly listed company justify receiving more than PKR 36 crore annually in remuneration while shareholders are left to absorb the consequences of reported losses, overseas write-downs and questionable financial arrangements? These are serious questions arising from corporate filings and financial disclosures, not conclusions that should be prejudged without a full investigation. The Pakistan Stock Exchange, Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan, Federal Board of Revenue, National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and other relevant regulatory authorities should examine the transactions, obtain supporting bank records, scrutinise related-party dealings and establish the actual movement and utilisation of funds across the company’s domestic and overseas subsidiaries. A publicly listed company is accountable to its shareholders and the public. Its management cannot expect transparency to be replaced by a favourable public image or institutional proximity. If the financial disclosures are accurate and the transactions commercially justified, Duraid Qureshi and HUM Network should have no difficulty providing a comprehensive, independently verifiable explanation. Until then, the gross and massive discrepancies in these filings demand serious answers. @Duraidqureshi1