 In this module, we shall further look into the legitimacy of a Sukuk instrument whether this is a genuine transaction or just a sham or scam. Some people they go for an extreme view and say that this is a fraud. There is no doubt that Sukuk is a recognized financial product in global financial markets. A number of governments, a number of corporations, big corporations, a number of multilateral institutions including the World Bank, IMF, Asian Development Bank, even United Nations, Islamic Development Bank, they have been involved in a number of Sukuk structures and Sukuk issuance. Islamic Development Bank which is a triple A rated multilateral bank, it issues Sukuk on quite a regular basis. Government of Pakistan is using Sukuk as a regular instrument to raise money. A number of non-government, non-Muslim governments have also issued Sukuk. For example, the government in United Kingdom has issued Sukuk previously, even government of South Africa, Singapore, Hong Kong and quite a number of other governments which are not Islamic, they have used Sukuk as an instrument to raise money. According to Global Islamic Finance Report 2021, about 174 billion worth of Sukuk were issued last year and this was actually a bumper year. This was the highest amount raised through Sukuk in a given period and this is a remarkable performance given that last year was the year as all of us know when COVID-19 hit us. If it was not a genuine transaction, why would investors from around the world trust it to invest billions of dollars? It is a genuine transaction. This is why only last year about 174 billion dollars were invested in Sukuk structure. Issues in Sukuk structuring. Now the question, do the investors really become owners of the assets sold by the obligor to the SPV? We said that there should be an asset, that asset should be sold by the obligor to the SPV. The question arises that SPV, does it give full ownership rights to the investors? Technically and legally, yes. However, in certain cases there are some legal clauses included in the documents to take care of certain concerns. In case of government of Pakistan, as I mentioned previously, the government of Pakistan did not feel comfortable in giving full recourse to the international investor. Why? Because Motorway M2 was considered as an asset of national interest and security. So, the government said, we ensure you that if a default happens i.e. we are not in a position to pay you the money back, there would be certain other mechanisms to which we shall be paying the money back to you, but we would not let you to sell M2 to someone else in case of a default. Abhi ag genuine concern tha ek government ka, which was taken into account. It does not mean that the transaction was not genuine. However, some people would say that no, no, no, this was not a genuine sale because ownership means that I should have full recourse to it. However, I think this is a criticism which is based on the idea of just criticising something. If we try to understand the intent of all the parties, this is actually a very, very genuine transaction and the investors and other stakeholders in the industry, they do recognise it. Having said that, I think it is important that this kind of concerns should be addressed and certain other solutions should be devised to make sure that there is a regulatory framework in place to take care of concerns of all the parties to a Sukuk transaction in such a way that everyone is happy, everyone feels security and of course, in this whole process, the transaction does not become a transaction which is not genuine.