Investigation Powers and the Warrant Requirement in Pakistan

An investigation into a suspected offence under the Virtual Assets Act 2026 does not begin with an inspector at the door. It begins with a warrant from a court. Sections 56 and 57 of the Act set the two gates a criminal investigation has to pass through before the Pakistan Virtual Asset Regulatory Authority can search a licensee’s premises, seize evidence, or compel information under threat of prosecution.

This is a narrower and more procedural power than the Authority’s general supervisory reach. On-site inspections and off-site monitoring under section 9(2)(e) are routine and do not need a warrant. Criminal investigation under sections 56 and 57 is a different track entirely, reserved for suspected offences, and it comes with judicial oversight built in from the first step.

Understanding where the line sits between ordinary supervision and criminal investigation matters for any Key Individual at a licensed virtual asset service provider, because the two tracks carry very different obligations and very different consequences for non-cooperation.

Who has the power to investigate offences under the Act?

Under section 56 of the Act, only an authorised officer of the Authority has the power to investigate offences under the Act. The Act does not itself define “authorised officer” — it does not set out a rank, a designation process, or a list of qualifying roles. In practice this means PVARA must formally authorise the individual officers who exercise investigative powers, but the Act leaves the mechanics of that authorisation to be worked out administratively rather than fixing it in the statute.

The restriction is significant on its own terms. No other PVARA employee, no outside agency acting independently, and no private complainant can conduct an investigation of an offence under this Act. That authority sits exclusively with officers the Authority has designated for the purpose.

What must an authorised officer obtain before conducting a search or seizure?

An authorised officer must obtain a warrant from a court of competent jurisdiction before searching for or seizing evidence of an offence. Section 57(1) states this in a single sentence:

“For the purpose of investigation of offences under this Act, an authorised officer shall obtain a warrant for search and seizure of evidence of an offence from a court of competent jurisdiction.”

There is no carve-out in the Act for urgent or emergency searches conducted without a warrant. The text is unqualified: search and seizure of evidence requires a warrant, obtained from a court, before it happens. This is one of the few points in the enforcement chapter where a court sits ahead of the Authority in the sequence of events, rather than reviewing the Authority’s decision after the fact on appeal.

What powers does an authorised officer have once an investigation is under way?

For the purposes of investigation, inquiry, search, seizure, arrest, attachment, confiscation and other criminal proceedings under the Act, an authorised officer exercises all the powers conferred on an officer in charge of a police station or an investigating officer under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, subject to the provisions of the Act. Section 57(2) sets out this equivalence directly, borrowing the existing criminal-procedure framework rather than creating a parallel one.

What the officer can do	Statutory basis
Investigate a suspected offence	Section 56, Section 57(2)
Obtain a search and seizure warrant from a court	Section 57(1)
Exercise arrest, attachment and confiscation powers as under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898	Section 57(2)
Compel information from a person under investigation	Section 57(2), backed by the penalty in Section 57(3)
Submit the written report that lets a court take cognizance of the offence	Section 57(4)

Because the powers are borrowed from the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 rather than newly invented, an authorised officer’s conduct during an investigation is also bound by whatever safeguards and limits that Code attaches to a police officer or investigating officer exercising the same power. The Act does not restate those safeguards — it incorporates them by reference through the phrase “subject to the provisions of this Act”, which in turn keeps the investigation inside the ordinary criminal-procedure framework rather than a bespoke one built only for virtual asset cases.

What happens if a person refuses to cooperate with the investigation?

A person who wilfully refuses to provide information required by the authorised officer under section 57(1) is punishable with imprisonment for a term up to one year, or with a fine up to one million Rupees, or with both. This is a narrower and lighter penalty than the separate offence of obstructing an officer of the Authority in the exercise of powers under the Act, which section 54(5) punishes with imprisonment up to two years or a fine up to ten million Rupees, or both.

The distinction between the two offences turns on conduct. Refusing to hand over information the officer has asked for falls under section 57(3). Actively obstructing the officer — physically, procedurally, or by other interference with the exercise of their powers — falls under section 54(5) and carries the heavier penalty. A licensee or Key Individual facing an investigation should treat both thresholds as live: passive non-cooperation and active obstruction are separately punishable, and the second is punished more severely.

Can a court take up an investigation on its own initiative?

No. Under section 57(4), no court may take cognizance of an offence under the Act except on a written report submitted by an authorised officer of the Authority. This closes off any route by which a private complaint, an FIR lodged independently, or a court’s own motion could put a case under this Act before a judge without PVARA’s authorised officer first completing an investigation and filing the report that triggers jurisdiction.

This gatekeeping function sits alongside the controller and fit and proper framework as one more way the Act channels enforcement through the Authority rather than leaving it open to parallel private or third-party action. In our reading, this concentrates both the power and the responsibility for pursuing criminal offences under the Act squarely with PVARA’s own investigative function.

How does an investigation connect to prosecution and the courts?

Once an authorised officer’s report gives a court cognizance of an offence under section 57(4), the matter moves to the prosecution and trial stage governed by sections 54(7), 54(8) and 58 of the Act — the special public prosecutor, the possible designation of a Special Court, and the procedural rules under Chapter XXII-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Investigation is the gateway; it does not itself determine guilt, impose a penalty, or authorise an administrative sanction — those follow only once the matter has passed through the warrant, arrest and reporting requirements set out in section 57.

A licensee that receives notice of an investigation should treat the warrant requirement, the information-refusal penalty, and the cognizance restriction as three separate checkpoints, each with its own consequence for getting it wrong, rather than as a single undifferentiated enforcement event.

About this analysis

This analysis was prepared by the CoinConnect research desk from the Virtual Assets Act 2026 as passed by the National Assembly — principally sections 9(2)(e), 54(5), 56 and 57 — read as published. Where the Act does not define a term used in these sections, that is stated in the text above.

Regulatory positions change and specific requirements should be verified against the current position published by the relevant authority before you act on them. This is information and analysis, not legal advice, and it does not create an advisory relationship. Take professional advice on your own circumstances.