Behavioral Red Flags: Coercive Tactics in Regulatory and Private Raids

By comparing HRPM-DTH20160 and HRPM-MLORJ30M, this report identifies a recurring pattern of deceptive and coercive behaviors used to facilitate state-sponsored harassment and corporate theft. From 'friendly visits' post-theft to the weaponization of stray dog management incidents, individual actors are leveraging state machinery for personal and political vendettas.

Key Findings

The 'Friendly Visit' Deception: Documented in FIR 673/25, involving Mobina Sohail’s presence following an alleged theft—a classic pattern of psychological intimidation.

Prosecutorial Overreach: The submission of Challan U/S 173 Cr. P.C against Parishay Khan (FIR 1626/25) regarding the CDA Stray Dog Population Control Centre incident, characterized by high-severity procedural anomalies.

Misuse of Identity Platforms: Personnel like Scott Graham (IntegraScreen) and internal leads exploiting their positions to facilitate administrative lockdowns.

Evidence & Data

In the case of Danish Thanvi, behavioral red flags include the 'forgery of official memos' to create a false narrative of regulatory non-compliance. In the Parishay Khan vs CDA Islamabad case, the rapid scheduling of hearings (February 20, 2026) without adequate defense discovery suggests a strategy of 'judicial exhaustion' intended to overwhelm the respondent.

Legal Framework

Tactics of intimidation and psychological coercion violate Article 5 of the UDHR (Freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment). The use of fabricated charges to exert pressure is a violation of Section 182 of the PPC (False Information with Intent to Cause Public Servant to Use Lawful Power to Injury of Another).

Recommendations

Independent review of FIR 673/25 and FIR 1626/25 for evidence of malicious prosecution.

Psychological assessment of the impact of decade-long harassment on Danish Iqbal Thanvi.

Read the full case file on HRPM: HRPM-MLORJ30M / HRPM-DTH20160.