ACC's reliance on 'suspicious transactions'

During the Awami League regime, the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) remained largely 'dormant'. At that time, 'corrupt' individuals who had grown fat on the influence of power were repeatedly given 'clean chits' (acquittals from allegations). However, the commission, which awakened during the interim government, has now filed cases against them for corruption, illegal assets, and money laundering as well. Not only that, but those influential figures against whom the commission previously dared not even investigate corruption allegations have now become case defendants with unusual speed. Their vast movable and immovable assets have been seized and frozen. However, experts have commented that the only capital in the charge sheets to prove corruption is 'suspicious transactions', which has made the cases extremely weak. Their concern is that due to the weakness of the cases, former ministers, MPs, police officers, and government officials from Sheikh Hasina's regime may slip through the loopholes of the law. At least 150 such cases have been filed during the tenure of the interim government, according to sources.

An analysis of the case statistics obtained from the ACC shows that during the interim government, the Anti-Corruption Commission filed a total of 1,094 cases. In 2025 alone, 874 cases were filed. This estimate shows, the average number of cases per working day is 39. Among these, at least 150 cases were filed in a similar pattern from December 2024 to March 2025. The primary basis of the allegations in these cases is 'suspicious transactions'. The defendants in these cases include former ministers, members of parliament, influential bureaucrats, police officers, government officials from the Awami League government, and their family members. While investigating these cases, even ACC officials themselves are finding that the information and data mentioned in the charge sheets are very weak. In many cases, cases have been filed simply by comparing bank transaction statements and income tax records to determine assets beyond known sources of income.

When asked about this, former ACC Director General (Legal) Md. Moideul Islam told Agamir Somoy, "Those who have investigated have the responsibility to prove the evidence. If they can satisfy the court with information and evidence, and if the court is satisfied that the allegations have been proven, then the court will convict the defendants. And if the ACC cannot present satisfactory information and evidence in court, then the court will acquit the defendants." In response to a question, he said, "A charge sheet that is based on assumptions should not be approved by the commission, and the court will not convict anyone based on such a charge sheet. The charge sheet must clearly show the defendant's assets beyond known sources of income. The investigating officer must reconcile the accused person's assets beyond known sources of income through any process."

Dr. Iftekharuzzaman, Executive Director of Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB), said, "If corruption cases had been filed against ministers, MPs, powerful individuals, and beneficiary officials during the fallen government's tenure, then prosecuting them would have been comparatively easier. Now the question remains as to how much accountability can be enforced against them through sweeping cases filed in their absence and hasty investigations. However, if specific corruption allegations are investigated and they are brought under accountability, it will set a precedent, which was not possible before."

After the Awami League government fell in the student-mass uprising, the interim government led by Dr. Muhammad Yunus took office on August 8, 2024. At that time, the commission led by Mohammad Moinuddin Abdullah, who was in charge of the ACC, became active in investigating corruption against the powerful figures. Even then, this commission was removed. The commission led by Mohammad Abdul Momen took over. Subsequently, investigations and cases were initiated against former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, her family members, as well as former ministers and MPs.
Analysis of case statistics reveals that in the month of the uprising, the commission remained largely silent due to indecisiveness about work in the changed situation. In that month, the ACC filed only 18 cases nationwide after completing investigations. In September of the same year, 50 cases were filed, 31 in October, and 6 in November. None of the Awami League heavyweights were defendants in these cases. However, even then, covert and overt investigations into corruption against Awami League ministers, MPs, close government officials, and businessmen had begun. From December 10 of that year, after the Abdul Momen commission took charge, the ACC's work gained momentum. It created a stir by publicly announcing the start of corruption investigations against Sheikh Hasina, her children, sister, nephews, and close associates. In continuation, cases have been filed one after another against ministers, MPs, and influential government officials. In the month of Abdul Momen's joining (December), the ACC filed 39 cases. Notable defendants in these cases include— former State Minister Junaid Ahmed Palak and his wife Arifa Jesmin; former NBR official Matiur Rahman, who was widely discussed in the goat scandal, and his wife Shammi Akhtar Shibli; former IGP Benazir Ahmed, his wife, and two daughters; Members of Parliament Mirza Azam and Naeemur Rahman Durjoy; and Sheikh Hasina's personal assistant Jahangir Alam and his wife Kamrun Nahar. At least 150 cases involve such heavyweight defendants. These cases primarily allege concealment of asset information, acquisition of assets beyond known sources of income, and money laundering. Many of the defendants in these cases had been given 'clean chits' (acquittals) multiple times during the Awami League regime from corruption allegations. Notable among them are— former NBR official Matiur Rahman, diamond trader Dilip Kumar Agarwal, and former Member of Parliament Nazrul Islam Babu.

Talking to several officials involved in investigations, it has been learned that during the Awami League rule, many complaints were filed in the ACC's intelligence branch. After August 5, these files were opened. But in haste, illegal assets were calculated by adding deposits and withdrawals from bank accounts held in the names of individuals and institutions. However, no explanation was obtained or taken from the defendants. Cases have been filed considering multiple deposits and withdrawals of transacted money as 'suspicious'. However, many individuals have deposited and withdrawn the same money multiple times at different times for personal and business needs.

According to a senior ACC official, due to pressure, cases were filed hastily, investigations were concluded, and charge sheets were submitted to court without delving deep into the inquiries. In many cases, significant discrepancies have been created in information during investigation and case filing. Investigating officers have collected the income tax documents of the accused through their own arrangements. But these cannot be submitted in court as evidence. As a result, it will be difficult to prove the cases in court. Taking advantage of this, the defendants may slip through the loopholes of the law— such concern was expressed by him.

An official investigating multiple cases said that in many cases, the basis and veracity of the allegations on which cases have been filed are not being found. Complexity has increased in the case of individuals and institutions. Due to the ACC's limited capacity, institution-focused cases are particularly weak.

An ACC official involved in monitoring cases in court said, "There has been no legal violation in filing these cases. However, just as concrete casting is stronger than brick, in cases, the more information and evidence attached, the easier it is to prove allegations. In these cases, the work has been like brick casting instead of concrete."

ACC lawyer Mir Ahmed Ali Salam told Agamir Somoy, "We (the ACC) file cases against the accused with evidence in hand. Therefore, allegations against the defendants can be proven in court. In many cases, cases are filed under Section 27 even without issuing asset statements to defendants. In such cases, bank statements, income tax files, and other data are presented in court. Even then, defendants often get away in many instances."