News Desk : The Appellate Division of the Hon’ble Supreme Court by a recent judgment and order expressed dissatisfaction and was surprised for not including the main culprits as accused in a Money Laundering case despite the High Court Division directed to include them. The prosecution case, in brief, is that accused Md. Hafiz Ibrahim was an influential parliament member elected from Bhola-2 constituency in 8th National Parliament. He was also a member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee of Ministry of Planning and Ministry of Information. Accused Md. Hafiz Ibrahim and his wife, the present accused-petitioners on 19-12-2005 in their joint names had opened a bank account in Standard Chartered Bank’s Battery Road Branch, Singapore being USD Account No. 01-07-416270. On an enquiry, the Anti-Corruption Commission found that US $ 1,75,000 was transferred between 19-12-2005 and 16-1-2008 in their joint bank account in Singapore from the joint account of Julfikar Ali, who was then a consultant of Siemens Bangladesh Ltd. and his wife Rahima Ali. It was also revealed from the documents that the aforesaid US Dollar was transferred to the account of the accused as a bribe to Hafiz Ibrahim for conduction of lobbying and helping Siemens to get a tender invited by the BTCL. Siemens admitted the said fact of giving money to many persons in Bangladesh in a criminal case, conducted in the District Court of Columbia, USA. Accused Hafiz Ibrahim did not disclose anything about the said money in his wealth statement submitted before the Commission. Therefore, the accused persons committed an offence of Money Laundering. The investigation officer after completing investigation and obtaining sanction from the Commission, submitted charge-sheet under Section 13 of the Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2002 read with Section 4(2) of the Money Laundering Ain, 2009 against the, accused-petitioner along with her husband. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the High Court Division, the leave petitioner has preferred the criminal petition for leave to appeal before this Appellate Division. Their Lordships of the Appellate Division mentioned the High Court Division’s observation and direction: “However, on perusal of the First Information Report and the charge-sheet, it appears that the alleged money was transferred from the joint account of Mr. Julfikar Ali and his wife Rahima Ali to the account of the present accused petitioner and her husband, accused Md. Hafiz Ibrahim in Singapore for illegal purchase but said Mr. Julfikar Ali and his wife were not made accused in the case, though Julfikar Ali has been cited as a witness in the charge-sheet. It is surprising to me that why said Julfikar Ali and his wife were not made accused in the case. From the materials on record, prima facie it seems to me that they also committed offence of money laundering as defined in Section ?(?)(?)(?)of the Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2002. Thus, I am inclined to direct the Anti-Corruption Commission to look into the matter and to take appropriate steps in accordance with the law” The learned Special Judge, Special Court No. 3, by order No. 40 dated 30-4-2014 communicated the judgment and orders of the High Court Division to the trial Court as well the Anti-Corruption Commission. Even after receipt of the judgment and order of the High Court Division, the Assistant Director, Anti-Corruption Commission issued a memo dated 11-9-2014. According to that memo if Julfikar Ali had been made an accused, there would be no witness to produce and prove any document in Court. Since there was no other option, Julfikar Ali was made a witness. The Appellate Division found the expressed views in the memo are objectionable and derogatory to the observation and direction made by the High Court Division. It is not comprehensible of how the Anti-Corruption Commission took such a stand in respect of Julfikar Ali. Having considered all aspects of the case, we direct the Special Judge to treat Julfikar Ali and his wife Rahima Ali, as accused in the case and to take cognizance against them under the relevant provisions of law and thereafter to proceed with the case in accordance with law. On behalf of the Appellate Division the judgment was delivered by Mr. Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain which was assented by their Lordships Mr. Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha, the Chief Justice, Madam Justice Nazmun Ara Sultana and Mr. Justice Hasan Foez Siddique. This is an example how bold some officials of the ACC are in abusing the power of the ACC. There seems to be no supervision of activities of the officials of the ACC. It is suspected that corruption has become a collectively consensual affair. The people in general complain that the ACC officials frequently use their power of issuing notices arbitrarily without examining the materials necessary for constituting an offence. The recipients of the notices are asked to appear before them under the threat of prosecuting them. The observers are of the view that the Anti-Corruption Commission feels unrestrained to abuse the overwhelming power. The judiciary also help them on the promise of fighting corruption. Yet we have to see why in spite of initiating so many cases corruption has become so defying in Bangladesh The law makers also amended the Anti-Corruption Law from time to time that includes the simple offence(s) allegedly committed under Section 420 to make the ACC a body to harass people. The ACC Chairman Mr. M Badiuzzaman has a good reputation but somehow he does not appear to be in charge. Our fear is that some officials are taking advantage of the political impunity for crimes.
