Published : 25 Aug 2026, 10:21 PM
Updated : 08 Sep 2026, 09:35 AM
The High Court has issued a rule asking why legal action should not be taken against officials of the Bangladesh Financial Intelligence Unit (BFIU) for alleged inaction over the recovery of an “undisclosed” $25 million held in the United Kingdom by former Eastern Bank chairman Mohammad Showkat Ali Chowdhury.
The bench of Justice Fahmida Kader and Justice Md Hamidur Rahman passed the order on Tuesday, also directing the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) to dispose of, within 30 days, an application filed by Supreme Court lawyer AHM Rezwanul Sayed alleging the transfer and laundering of the money.
The order came following a writ petition filed by Sayed, which named the ACC and its chairman, the head of the BFIU, the National Board of Revenue (NBR), and Showkat Ali as respondents.
Senior lawyers Mohammad Ali, Syed Mamun Mahbub and Shanjid Siddique represented the petitioner during the hearing.
Shanjid told journalists that while investigating the UK assets of former land minister Saifuzzaman Chowdhury, the country's National Crime Agency (NCA) had traced an undisclosed $25 million fund to a bank account in Showkat's name.
The petition describes Showkat as a citizen of Saint Kitts and Nevis and an associate of Mohammad Saiful Alam, commonly known as S Alam, who could not give the NCA a satisfactory explanation for the source of the money.
It further alleges that Showkat attempted to move the funds to Mashreq Bank and Emirates NBD in Dubai during the investigation.
UK authorities temporarily froze the suspicious transaction and flagged it to the BFIU.
According to the petition, the NCA told the BFIU that Bangladesh could arrange to recover the money if it took legal action, and that the funds would be held for four weeks for this purpose.
Shanjid, however, alleged the BFIU never followed up with the NCA during that window, and the Bangladesh government took no legal action either.
The NCA then released the $25 million, and Showkat moved it to his Dubai account, he said.
The NBR later learned of Showkat's overseas assets, prompting him to declare the $25 million in his income tax return.
He paid Tk 1.36 billion in tax and Tk 3.06 billion in penalties to the NBR's Large Taxpayers Unit for the declared asset, the petition says.
Yet neither the ACC nor any other agency probed the source of the funds or how they were moved abroad, even after the assets were declared and the tax and penalties paid.
Such a probe, the plea argues, could have uncovered offences under Section 4(1) of the Money Laundering Prevention Act, 2012, and Section 27(1) of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004.
Shanjid said that on Aug 13, 2026, Sayed had applied to the ACC and BFIU seeking an inquiry into the transfer of Showkat's $25 million from the UK to Dubai, but the BFIU did not invoke its powers under Section 23 of the Money Laundering Prevention Act, 2012, despite having the NCA's information and documents.
“That is why we sought departmental proceedings against the BFIU officials who were involved in this negligence and who failed to take timely legal action, resulting in Bangladesh losing the opportunity to bring the money back to the country.”
The petition sought a rule asking why the failure to freeze or seize the $25 million, investigate its source and transfer route, and act on the alleged laundering should not be declared unlawful.
It also sought departmental action against the BFIU officials involved, and a directive for the authorities to investigate and report back within 30 days, pending disposal of the writ.
Explaining the High Court’s rule, Shanjid said: “The High Court has issued a rule asking why legal action should not be taken against the BFIU officials whose failure has resulted in the money not being brought back to Bangladesh.”
He said, “We lost this $25 million solely because of the BFIU’s inaction, even though we could have recovered it.”
Shanjid said recovering money after it has been laundered abroad becomes legally difficult.
“Once money is laundered, bringing it back is legally very difficult if there is no bilateral agreement between the two countries,” he said.
He also questioned whether BFIU officials had properly performed their duties under the law.
“The Money Laundering Prevention Act, 2012 specifies the formation and powers of the BFIU. If the BFIU fails to take legal action despite having the National Crime Agency’s report that was sent to it, then it is failing to perform its statutory responsibilities,” he said.
The writ petition cited media reports as supporting documents. It referred to reports published on Jul 13, 2026, titled “Dhaka Misses UK Window to Recover EBL Chairman’s $25 Million,” and on Jul 14, titled “EBL Chairman Fined Tk 307 Crore for Money Laundering.”
It said those reports mentioned the four-week deadline given by the NCA and the temporary freezing of the funds.
Shanjid said the NCA had asked Showkat to explain the source of the money at the time, but he had failed to give a satisfactory answer.
