Employment is context, not the offence
A business investigation may involve many people whose roles differ substantially. Some provide ordinary support, some manage campaigns, some control access and others handle payments. The law should be applied to the actual acts and applicable offence, not a presumption that everyone at the premises did the same thing. [1]
This does not mean that employment creates immunity. An agent who knowingly communicates a deceptive demand can face a different question from an employee performing an unrelated administrative task. A manager who approves an unlawful process cannot necessarily avoid scrutiny by saying that someone else made the calls.
Begin with a factual role map for the relevant period. Avoid retrospective job descriptions designed to make every person appear uninvolved.
Read the mental element of the particular provision
PECA offences do not all use identical language. Electronic fraud, unauthorised access, identity-information misuse and other provisions must be read separately. Some require specified dishonest intention or other mental elements; others frame the authorisation question differently. Do not import one generic intention test into every charge. [1]
For an individual, relevant evidence may include what they were told, what they understood about the client, the script they used, warnings received and their response to an obvious irregularity. A statement that the employee “should have known” needs legal analysis rather than replacing the actual statutory test.
At the same time, a self-serving denial of knowledge is not conclusive where messages, training or conduct point the other way. The assessment must be candid about both helpful and adverse material.
Following instructions is a fact, not an automatic defence
A supervisor’s instruction can explain why an employee acted, but does not necessarily make the act lawful. Where the instruction is obviously deceptive, unauthorised or harmful, blind obedience may not resolve the individual’s exposure. The applicable offence and evidence remain central. [1]
Employees should seek clarification and use an appropriate reporting route when asked to claim false affiliation, misuse identity information or conceal the real transaction. Preserve relevant instructions without taking unrelated client data or breaching lawful access restrictions.
Management should not force employees to continue a disputed practice while promising that the company’s registration protects them personally. Nor should employees be encouraged to create false complaints about colleagues as a defensive tactic.
Access, payments and communications can help distinguish roles
Review which accounts the individual could use, what approvals they could give and whether they handled the disputed transactions. Shared logins, poor access controls and incomplete training records can make attribution difficult, but do not automatically establish either guilt or innocence.
The chronology matters. Joining dates, role changes, leave and campaign assignment may show whether the person was involved during the alleged period. Authentic records should be preserved, including any material that contradicts the preferred explanation.
A payslip or employment letter proves part of an employment relationship. It does not by itself explain the person’s knowledge, customer communications or use of a database. Build the evidence around the actual allegation. [1]
Managers and directors need a separate responsibility review
A management title alone should not replace the statutory analysis, but decision-making authority and actual involvement can be highly relevant. Who selected the campaign, approved the script, received complaints and controlled payments? Who had the power to stop the practice, and what did they actually do?
PECA and relevant criminal-law principles may require assessment of individual participation and other forms of responsibility on the facts. Do not assume that corporate incorporation transfers all criminal consequences away from natural persons. [1]
Governance records should therefore show meaningful review, not only an unsigned policy. When a concern is raised, document the investigation, decision and corrective action without altering the underlying evidence.
Worked example: two agents, different evidence
Imagine two employees assigned to the same campaign. One worked only on a legitimate support queue and had no access to the disputed sales process. Another received and followed written instructions to make a knowingly false claim. Their shared employer does not make their evidence identical.
The first employee’s assignment and access records may support a distinct position. The second requires advice addressing the actual communications and statutory elements, not a generic letter stating that employees cannot be liable.
This hypothetical is deliberately not a prediction of guilt or outcome. It illustrates the need for individual legal analysis and why a single company statement may be inadequate.
Protect the employee’s independent position
Where management’s instructions are in issue, consider separate representation. An employee should not sign a statement they do not understand, surrender original personal records without an appropriate process or accept a fabricated account to protect the business.
Employers should preserve records and avoid retaliation against a truthful internal report. Employment consequences require their own contractual and applicable labour-law assessment. Do not use salary, experience letters or resignation demands as leverage for a false legal statement.
A credible individual defence starts with a truthful account supported by reliable evidence. It is strengthened by accurate distinctions, not by claiming that no employee can ever be responsible for a call made at work.
Legal assistance for this issue
Legal Bridge LLP can review individual responsibility under Pakistan law, subject to a conflict check. The employee’s position should not be merged with the company’s defence where their interests or evidence differ.
