Can corrupt individuals be identified by looking at bank accounts?

There has been a rush to seek the bank account information of former advisers and special assistants of the interim government. After Asif Mahmud Shojib Bhuiyan, the Bangladesh Financial Intelligence Unit (BFIU) has also sought the bank account details of former advisers of the interim government Syeda Rizwana Hasan, Fouzul Kabir Khan, Adilur Rahman Khan, and the Chief Adviser’s Special Assistant (Ministry of Home Affairs) Khoda Bakhsh Chowdhury.

BFIU has sent letters to all banks and financial institutions in the country requesting information on their accounts. The agency sent these letters as part of an investigation to determine whether any unusual transactions had taken place in those bank accounts.

The letter instructed that all information related to their personal accounts be sent to BFIU in an Excel sheet within the next three working days.

It should be noted that in the interim government, Syeda Rizwana Hasan served as adviser to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change as well as the Ministry of Water Resources and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Fouzul Kabir Khan served as adviser for Power, Energy and Mineral Resources. Adilur Rahman Khan served as adviser for Housing and Public Works as well as Industries.

After the call for his bank account details, former student adviser Asif Mahmud held a press conference on March 4 and presented all information related to his bank accounts. Generally, people keep their legally earned money in banks. Why would someone keep illegal money or funds obtained through corruption in a bank? Moreover, there are now many other places to store money.

The Berlin-based international anti-corruption organization Transparency International has shown in its research that there are at least five safe places to keep money obtained through corruption. According to the research, various cyber currencies such as Bitcoin are rapidly becoming popular worldwide due to corruption. The research also states that many international institutions have emerged around the world to launder black money. The demand and popularity of these institutions are increasing day by day.

In Europe and the Middle East there are hundreds of investment companies that launder black money in the name of investment. There are also some tax haven countries where money can be sent without being questioned. Agents have now emerged in different countries to facilitate transferring money to these island states. Experts who research corruption say that hundreds of billions of taka can now become legitimate almost instantly. Because of the growing amount of black money and illegally earned wealth in the global economy, the traditional banking system is gradually becoming weaker.

The various investigative agencies in Bangladesh, particularly Bangladesh Bank’s BFIU, are certainly aware of these facts. Yet why does this organization still summon bank account information or freeze bank accounts?

In Bangladesh the entire banking system is now digital. From opening a bank account to every transaction made, all information goes directly to Bangladesh Bank. Bangladesh Bank or BFIU can take action whenever any suspicious transaction is detected. So why this drama of summoning bank account information?

After the fall of the Awami League government, the then Governor of Bangladesh Bank initiated a wave of summoning bank account information and freezing bank accounts. In reality, the governor had issued such instructions to damage the image of individuals he disliked through media trials. However, the result turned out to be the opposite.

During the interim government’s tenure, the information of nearly ten thousand bank accounts was sought and many accounts were frozen. Nearly one thousand bank accounts have remained closed for one to one and a half years. Yet not a single account has been proven to be involved in money laundering. Ninety percent of the accounts that were frozen contained less than one million taka. To mislead people, BFIU has resorted to dishonesty and manipulation while presenting the information of these accounts.

For example, consider a person who is 60 years old. Over his lifetime he deposited one crore taka in different banks and withdrew ninety lakh taka. BFIU added both the deposits and withdrawals together and told the media that the person had twenty crore taka in his account and withdrew nineteen crore taka. By presenting transaction figures as cumulative amounts, damaging the individual’s character was the strategy of Ahsan H. Mansur. But this strategy backfired.

On one hand it is being said that 26 lakh crore taka has been laundered abroad, yet when the alleged launderer’s bank account contains only a few lakh taka, discussions about money laundering lose credibility. Allegations of corruption become weak. In the past 18 months Bangladesh Bank has not been able to prove money laundering charges against even one person whose bank account was frozen. Therefore it has become clear that the freezing of these accounts was largely motivated by harassment and retaliation. As a result, even in a year and a half no visible action could be taken against the real money launderers.

The interim government has not been able to recover even a single taka that was allegedly laundered abroad. The issue of money laundering has now largely faded. Many people have started to believe that what the government said about money laundering was not entirely true. As a result, real money launderers have effectively received a form of impunity.

However, the widespread summoning and freezing of bank accounts has created fear among ordinary depositors. This has been compounded by the inability of customers to withdraw money from several weak banks. Altogether, public confidence in the banking sector – the backbone of a country’s economy – has declined. Wealthy individuals are moving their assets abroad. Even members of the middle class now consider it safer to go abroad and pursue opportunities there rather than doing something within the country. Investors also feel uncomfortable investing domestically. Media trials surrounding bank account freezes and account inquiries have caused immense damage to the banking sector.

While analysts are discussing these issues from various angles, the bank accounts of several former advisers of the interim government have now been summoned. The question arises whether this is meant to uncover corruption or to protect them. Because after the fall of the Awami League government, bank account information was sought so indiscriminately that not only advisers but even petty corrupt individuals would be unlikely to keep bribe money in banks. Their corruption must be investigated through other means.

For example, the Anti-Corruption Commission had started investigating Moeazzem Hossain, the former Assistant Private Secretary (APS) to former Youth and Sports and Local Government adviser Asif Mahmud, over allegations of hundreds of crores of taka in corruption related to lobbying and influence trading. But that investigation was halted due to government intervention, and the APS left the country. If that investigation had continued, the real truth about Asif Mahmud’s corruption could have emerged. Why was it not pursued?

Former Shipping Ministry adviser M Sakhawat Hossain attended important meetings of Chattogram Port together with his son M Safaq Hossain. Safaq was even given suit fabric worth 32,000 taka as a gift using port funds. The Chairman of Chattogram Port, Rear Admiral SM Moniruzzaman, personally handed over this gift. If one simply examines what role the adviser’s son had at the port, the source of corruption of this former adviser could easily be identified. But that has not been done. Why?

Why did Asif Nazrul transfer sub-registrars on such a massive scale after becoming an adviser? An objective investigation into this matter would reveal who is truly honest. If the activities of all advisers during their one and a half years in office were investigated, it would be possible to understand who did what. The advisers of the interim government are all educated and members of civil society. They are not so foolish as to deposit bribe money in banks.

The advisers have already disclosed their asset statements before leaving office, and these statements have been published in the media. So why this drama of summoning bank account information?

After the departure of the interim government, numerous allegations of corruption against them have emerged in both the mainstream and social media. Is this arrangement being made to grant them immunity from those allegations?

Audite Karim is a writer and playwright. Email: [email protected]