Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh

ALL A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z



Money Laundering Protirodh Ain (মানিলন্ডারিং প্রতিরোধ আইন)
Section/Order/Article/Rule/Regulation Head Note
Section 2(d)

Bail–
There are allegations against the accused respondents of misappropriation of huge amount of money. The accused respondents do not deny about the collection of such huge amount of money from the shareholders. Only dispute which has been found as per submissions of the learned counsel are that according to the prosecution, the accused persons have misappropriated the money without investing in the projects but according to the accused respondents the money has been utilized in different projects. Since the accused persons made positive statements that Destiny Group own 35,00,000 saleable trees planted on more than thousand acres of land, which may be sold at Taka 28,00,00,00,000 crore approximately, this court finds that if the proposal of the accused persons is accepted the public money will be secured. .....Durnity Daman Commission =VS= Mohammad Hossain, (Criminal), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 549] ....View Full Judgment

Section 2 & 4(2)

read with Money Laundering Prevention Act, 2002 Sections-2 & 13 read with General Clauses Act, 1897; Section-6
In the instant case the alleged offence was disclosed under the provisions of Section 2 (>) (W) (Wf) of the Ain of 2002 but there was no pending case or proceeding under the Ain of 2002 when the said Ain of 2002 or the Ordinance of 2008 was repealed. Rather the FIR was lodged under Sections 2 and 4(2) of the Ain of 2009 on 26.10.2009 long after the repeal of the Ain of 2002 by the Ordinance of 2008 and also after the enactment of the Ain of 2009 on 24.02.2009. It appears that according to the FIR occurrence took place from 01.01.2003 to 31.05.2007 when the Ain of 2002 was in operation. The Ain of 2009 was given retrospective effect from 15.04.2008 when the Ain of 2002 was repealed by the promulgation of the Ordinance of 2008. The facts and circumstances of the instant case is very unique in its nature wherein an offence committed under the repealed Ain of 2002 and the FIR was lodged much long after the repeal of the said Ain when the Ain of 2009 came into effect with the intervening Ordinance of 2008 which had already been repealed before the lodging of the FIR— since the alleged offences were committed during the operation of the Ain of 2002, the punishment for the said offence as provided under Chapter IV of the said Ain be applicable. Therefore, there is no bar to hold trial of the petitioner under provisions of the ACC Act, 2004 for the commission of the offence alleged to have been committed under the Ain of 2002 and the question of prejudice does not arise at all. The case be treated as one instituted under the Ain of 2002. Tarique Rahman Vs. Govt: of Bangladesh & Ors 19 BLT (AD) 104 ....View Full Judgment

Sections 2 (V) (A) (Av) and 13

Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2002
Sections 2 (V) (A) (Av) and 13
There is no illegality in the impugned judgment and order since the allegation raised against the petitioner discloses an offence of money laundering under the Ain of 2009; that the provisions of the Ain of 2002 was saved by the Ordinance of 2008 with some modifications of the provisions of the Ain of 2002 and the provisions of Ordinance of 2008 was saved by the Ain of 2009 and there is a continuity of law relating to the Money Laundering Protirodh Ain–
Petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.6286 of 2010 before the High Court Division challenging the Constitutional validity of the Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2009 (Act No.8 of 2009) and the legality of the initiation and continuation of Metro Special Case No.126 of 2010.
After hearing, the High Court Division by its judgment and order dated 29.09.2010 discharged the Rule, holding inter alia:
I) The writ petition is not maintainable
II) The Proceedings under the Ain of 2009 was not barred under Article 35(1) of the Constitution since money laundering was an offence even under the Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “Ain of 2002”) although its definition has been elaborated under the subsequent Ain of 2009.
Sum up our findings it is held that firstly, the writ petition is misconceived one and not maintainable since vires of no law has been challenged. Secondly, the provision of Sub Article (1) of Article 35 of the Constitution will not be attracted since the offence as well as its punishment, if any, would be dealt with under the Ain of 2002. Thirdly, from a clear reading of the FIR, Investigation Report and other materials on record, a prima-facie case under Sections 2 (V) (A) (Av) and Section 13 of the Ain of 2002 has been disclosed and the prosecution may proceed in accordance with law, if so advised. The judgment and order of the High Court Division is modified in the light of the findings and observations made above. The leave petition is disposed of with the above observations and modifications. ...Tarique Rahman =VS= Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Bangladesh, (Civil), 2020 [9 LM (AD) 348] ....View Full Judgment

Section 13

Money Laundering Portirodh Ain (VII of 2002)
Section 13
The Appellate Division observed that the High Court Division made the observation and direction that 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 Julfiker Ali has been cited as a witness in the charge sheet.It is surprising to High Court 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 High Court that they also committed offence of money laundering as defined in section 2(W) (A) (B) of the Money Laundering Portirodh Ain,2002. The High Court inclined to direct the Anti-Corruption Commission to look into the matter and to take appropriate steps in accordance with the law.The Anti-Corruption Commission did not follow the judgment of the High Court Division. The Assistant Director, Anti-Corruption Commission issued a memo dated 11.09.2014. 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 aforesaid views expressed 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, the Appellate Division 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
Mafruza Sultana -Vs.- The State 6 ALR (AD) 2015 (2)86 ....View Full Judgment

Section 13

মানিলন্ডারিং প্রতিরোধ অধ্যাদেশ, 2008
Section 2(V)(A)(Av)
মানিলন্ডারিং প্রতিরোধ আইন, 2002
Section 13
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Section 241A, 561A
It is a settled proposition that a criminal proceeding cannot be quashed on the basis of defence materials before admitting the same as evidence in the course of trial.
We are of the view that the High Court Division after hearing both the parties and on perusal of the materials on record rightly found that the claim of the petitioner as to her ignorance about the alleged transaction involves question of fact which cannot be decided at this stage. We further hold the view that an accused cannot be discharged when there are prima facie ingredients of the offence alleged to stifle the prosecution before trial and that the nature of offence can well be thrashed out in the trial. This criminal petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. ...Mafruza Sultana =VS= State, (Criminal), 2020 [9 LM (AD) 370] ....View Full Judgment