ADاشتہار / AdvertisementGoogle Ad
Amir Khan alleges Rs22.5m fraud in Islamabad dealPakistan
Boxer Amir Khan has alleged he was cheated of Rs22.5 million in a failed Islamabad business deal, accusing his business partner of taking the money illegally.
Share:
Boxer Amir Khan has alleged that he was cheated of Rs22.5 million in a failed business deal in Islamabad, accusing his business partner of taking the money illegally on the pretext of a business arrangement. The allegation was reported on Monday, and it centres on a deal that, according to Khan, did not go ahead as promised.
Khan has named Khaliq Tanoli in his allegation, claiming that Tanoli took the money from him under the guise of a business deal. The claim, as reported, is that the funds were obtained illegally, and that the business venture at the heart of the arrangement failed to materialise.
ADاشتہار / AdvertisementGoogle Ad
It is important to be clear about the nature of these claims: they are allegations made by Khan, and they have been reported as his account of events. They are not, on the basis of the report, findings by a court or conclusions of an investigation, and the other side’s version of events is not set out in the same report.
Khan also made a separate clarification in connection with the matter, saying that he has no connection with Zuma Islamabad. That statement appears aimed at drawing a line between himself and a business name that has been mentioned around the dispute, making clear that he does not wish to be associated with it.
Disputes of this kind, where a well-known figure puts money into a business venture that then fails, often attract wide attention, and they can be difficult to untangle. Business deals usually involve agreements, payments, timelines and expectations on both sides, and when a venture collapses, the question of who is owed what can quickly become contested.
For public figures, the stakes can be higher than the money alone. A boxer of Khan’s profile brings attention to any venture he is linked with, and that attention can cut both ways: it can lend a project credibility at the start, and it can magnify the fallout if the project ends in dispute.
The reported sum, Rs22.5 million, is substantial by any measure, and the allegation that it was taken illegally is a serious one. Allegations of this nature, if pursued, would normally be tested through legal or investigative channels, where documents, agreements and payment records can be examined and both sides can present their case.
For now, what is publicly known is Khan’s allegation and his denial of any link with Zuma Islamabad. Readers should treat the claims as one side’s account until any further development — such as a response from the person named, or action by the authorities — is reported.
The episode is also a reminder of the care needed when private money moves into business ventures. Written agreements, clear records of payments and independent advice are the usual safeguards, and their absence is often what turns a failed deal into a public dispute.
Related Coverage
