Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 2017 was passed with much patronage and endorsement by sections of the bureaucracy, lawyers and the media. The objective of the law is simple; prohibit holding Benami property, restrict the right to transfer Benami properties and provide a mechanism to confiscate Benami properties. What needs to be understood here is the meaning of the word Benami, even though literally it may sound like a property without a name depending on the Urdu meaning of the word ‘Benami’, it is in effect a concept very similar to the doctrines of ‘resulting’ and ‘constructive’ trusts developed by our ex-colonial masters. When property is beneficially held by someone who does not own it legally either to evade creditors or taxes to safeguard himself from social or political risks, the property is said to be Benami. Under the new Act, Benami transactions are those where a property owned by an individual has been paid for by someone else and the ownership is through fictitious means;the owner of the property denies ownership and the person who paid for the property is also untraceable or fictitious. It can be reasonably discerned that not all Benami transactions are fraudulent, the courts have over the years recognized several Benami properties for the benefit of those that actually paid for the property even though the ownership was registered in someone else’s name. I may purchase a house in the name of my wife or children out of my own pocket and not be deserving of punitive action unless and until I cannot justify the means through which I paid for such property. Nevertheless, Benami transactions can be used to concealillegal or untaxed earning in the form of Benami land, bank accounts, stocks, cars and all sorts of assets. The predicament clearly here is not whether a property can legally be owned by one person but beneficially be in the possession of another, but rather to determine if the funding of such transactions are from clean or dirty money,to ensure the new Act is serving its intended purpose. The Economic Crime Wing (ECW) of the FIA is already established to investigate black money in addition to thenotorious NAB that can arrest any person at will, when according to it a case is made out of one owning assets beyond their known means of income or abuse of public office at the expense of the national exchequer The FBR has been an institution vulnerable to scathing criticism since it has failed in its own revenue projections year after year. The basic responsibility of the FBR is revenue collection for the government; the new Act empowers it to confiscate Benami properties so the pertinent question here is when the FBR has been deficient in fulfilling its primary responsibility why have we placed more in its mouth than it may be able to chew. State institutions and their officers rarely object to arbitrary powers handed out to them hence the FBR was quick in issuing SRO 326(I)/2019 to notify rules for Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 2017. The Economic Crime Wing (ECW) of the FIA is already established to investigate black money in addition to the notorious NAB that can arrest any person at will, when according to it a case is made out of one owning assets beyond their known means of income or abuse of public office at the expense of the national exchequer. The inquiries and investigations have been so minute so as to include within their ambit helicopter rides. When there are authorities already investigating public corruption it seems like a senseless exercise to establish another law on the basis of consequential cognizance, where the FBR may recover properties after conviction of the accused through the already existing prosecuting agencies. The need for fraudulent Benami transactions to be curtailed is undeniable, yet the potential of abuse through largely arbitrary power at the hands of governmental agencies is enormous. The SRO 326(I)/2019 gives officers of the FBR unbridled powers even over and above those enjoyed by the mighty officers of the NAB. They can attach properties to investigations, which means no part of the property may be differentiated and search the premises of individuals it accuses of being connected to Benami transactions. A person who has engaged in a Benami transaction, whether with clean or dirty money may be imprisoned for up to seven years and his property may be confiscated.Such colossal and whimsical powers in the hands of an already allegedly corrupt and lethargic bureaucracy can lead to administrative injustice of massive statures. A deputy commissioner level officer at the FBR right now has the authority to initiate proceedings in Benami transactions and in the next few years they will be considered among the most powerful officers of the state. A similar Benami Act in India was promulgated in 1988, but the distinction that they do not have special accountability courts in their country and have a highly developed legislative framework to deal with economic crimes cannot be ignored. Although Benami transactions were made illegal, the Act was not entirely successful, and amendments had to be passed in 2011 and 2016 to make it more effective. Even now with those amendments on board, the law has had limited efficacy. Unfortunately, we did not learn much from our neighbor’s experience in outlawing Benami transactions. While some may argue that the enactment of the law would strengthen Pakistan’s case at the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), it is not that straightforward. Putting pen to paper has never been the answer without strict, just and fair implementation by the executive branch of the government. The issue with Benami transactions was not one of lack of laws but with the capacity and will of the agencies of the state to enforce the law in letter and spirit. If the FBR has notice of untaxed income, it could proceed under its powers provided through the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. A Benami transaction could be the lead for such investigations but never the cause for action. In short, what is required is the effective and nondiscriminatory application of already existing laws to prevent corruption and tax evasion. All in all, one can conclude the new Act with an old English proverb; all that glitters is not gold. The writer is a barrister, who has an interest in Pakistani current affairs, economy, constitutional developments, foreign policy and international law