Legal action: Hafeez files complaint against fraudulent property agents

Pakistan batsman files complaint against property agents who fled with Rs3.25 crore after promising plot in DHA


Sports Desk August 19, 2015
PHOTO: AFP

LAHORE: Pakistan all-rounder Muhammad Hafeez has filed a complaint against property agents who took Rs3.25 crore from him for a plot in DHA, Lahore and did not deliver the papers as promised.

Hafeez, who was recently banned for 12 months by the International Cricket Council for illegal bowling action, submitted the complaint to the Senior Superintendent Police of Central Investigation Agency.

According to Express News, Rs1.25 crore have been recovered while Rs2 crore are still in the custody of the con-men.

Earlier, Hafeez was banned for one year by ICC after he failed to clear the Test in Chennai.

Hafeez was reported during the second Test in the Test series against Sri Lanka.

The Match Officials’ Report, which was handed over to the Pakistan management, cited concerns about the legality of the 34-year-old’s bowling action during the course of the match.

He flew to Chennai on July 6 to undergo a bio-mechanic test on his bowling action at the Sri Ramachandra Arthroscopy and Sports Sciences Centre (SRASSC) for about two hours including calibration time.

This was not the first time that the off-spinner’s action has been questioned. Hafeez was suspended from bowling in November 2014. Following remedial work on his bowling action, he was reassessed and permitted to resume bowling in April.

As the report against Sri Lanka was the player’s second within a two-year period, the first of which led to a suspension, he was automatically suspended from bowling in international cricket for a 12-month period.

COMMENTS (9)

Ahmed | 9 years ago | Reply Is this news about the real agent's fraud or Hafeez' bowling action?
ABC | 9 years ago | Reply Check how much tax had he paid
VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ