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

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there was no pending case or proceeding under the Ain of 2002 when the said Ain of 2002 or the Ordinance of 2008 was repealed.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 The Ain of 2009 was given retrospective effect from 15.04.2008 when the Ain of 2002 was repealed by the promulgation of the Ordinance of 2008. The facts and circumstances of the instant case is very unique in its nature wherein an offence committed under the repealed Ain of 2002 and the FIR was lodged much long after the repeal of the said Ain when the Ain of 2009 came into effect with the intervening Ordinance of 2008 which had already been repealed before the lodging of the FIR— since the alleged offences were committed during the operation of the Ain of 2002, the punishment for the said offence as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

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958
Section 10(1A)
Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2012
Section 2(11)
Stayed the bail granting order–– The First Information Report (FIR) and result of investigation disclosed the specific and definite allegation of offence of money laundering. The Investigating Officer reports that specific and definite allegations of money laundering against the respondent is noticeable and the blue print towards commission of the offence alleged has been disclosed as serious and repulsive activities of the respondents in misappropriating money through illegal suspicious transaction to the other authorities and in such a state of affairs, the respondent should not be enlarged on bail. ––Having considered those fact, circumstances and materials on record, this Division finds that accepting bail of the respondent is not a legal and just one and thus. ––The judgment and order dated 26-1-2021 passed by the High Court Division in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 1799 of 2020 is hereby set-aside. Accepting the bail of Rashedul Huq Chishti is hereby set-aside. .....Durnity Daman Commission =VS= Rashedul Huq Chishti, (Criminal), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 300] ....View Full Judgment

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

Money Laundering Protirdoh Ain, 2002
Section 13
Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2009 & 2012
Section 4
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Section 540
Recalling of P.W.8 is nothing but with intention to delay and drag the case for indefinite period– Appears from the material on record the defence side filed petition on 02-12-21 under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in a belated stage i.e. after long 5 years more from the last date of the cross-examination of the P.W.8 when the prosecution had concluded the prosecution case. So, the recalling of P.W.8 is nothing but with intention to delay and drag the case for indefinite period of time. The Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal is disposed of. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court Division is set aside. .....Durnity Daman Commission, BD =VS= Dr. Khandaker Mosharraf Hossain, (Criminal), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 512] ....View Full Judgment

Penal Code
Sections 409/420/109
Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2012
Sections 4(2) and 4 (3)
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
Section 5(2)
It is now well settled that a criminal case having criminal liability cannot be avoided due to departmental proceeding against the accused. ...Sultana Fahmida Vs. The State & anr, (Criminal), 18 SCOB [2023] HCD 54 ....View Full Judgment

CrPC
Section 439
Penal Code
Sections 409/420/109
Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2012
Sections 4(2) and 4 (3)
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
Section 5(2)
Exercise of revisional jurisdiction of High Court Division to ensure justice under Section 439 of CrPC:
On an application by a party or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, High Court Division is legally competent to exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to examine the facts and circumstances of the case and the judgment and the order if there is any error which may not ensure justice to the litigant public in not following the correct principles of law and fact in assessing the material and evidence in proper perspective and in that case, High Court Division may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a court of appeal by Sections 423, 426, 427 and 428 or on a court by Section 338. ...Sultana Fahmida Vs. The State & anr, (Criminal), 18 SCOB [2023] HCD 54 ....View Full Judgment

Penal Code
Sections 409/420/109
Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2012
Sections 4(2) and 4 (3)
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
Section 5(2)
Failure of Prosecution to implicate responsible Persons within the Chain of Occurrence:
Under the circumstances, it is worthwhile to mention that the prosecution case cannot continue on a defective foundation of a case since the necessary and responsible persons who are involved in the alleged offences within the chain of occurrence are not implicated in this case making them accused. ...Sultana Fahmida Vs. The State & anr, (Criminal), 18 SCOB [2023] HCD 54 ....View Full Judgment

Rejected prayer for bail–– It appears that the petitioner earlier took treatment from the BSMMU in different dates which is the best medical institution of the country. Earlier this Division directed to enlarge the petitioner on bail on certain grounds as per approach made by the petitioner himself but he himself violated his own promise made before the Court and in such view of the matter, the High Court Division rightly rejected his prayer for bail. .....Rafiqul Amin (Md) =VS= Deputy Commissioner, Dhaka, (Criminal), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 310] ....View Full Judgment

The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958
Sections 10(1A), 4(1)
The Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2012
Section 4(2)/ 4(3)
A case under the Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2012 the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to deal with the application for bail of an accused as he has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offence under the said Ain of 2012– A prayer for bail before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dhaka and the learned Metropolitan Magistrate concerned by the order on the same day enlarged them on bail. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of granting bail to the accused respondents, the present victim-petitioners filed an application for cancellation of bail of the said accused vide Miscellaneous Case No.6012 of 2021 before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Dhaka. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Dhaka after hearing the said Miscellaneous Case by its order dated 26.09.2021 rejected the same and maintained the order of bail passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Dhaka.
Thereafter, the present victim-petitioners moved an application under section 10(A) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 vide Criminal Revision No.2330 of 2021 before the High Court Division. A Division Bench of the High Court Division on 22.11.2021 issued a Rule and also stayed the operation of the order dated 26.09.2021 passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge till disposal of the Rule and the accused-respondents were directed to surrender before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dhaka within a period of 02(two) weeks from the date of receipt of the order by him. Since the application under section 10(1A) of the Act of 1958 filed by the victim-petitioners is not amenable in the High Court Division and the High Court Division wrongly applied its jurisdiction, thus the Rule issuance order and all the orders including the impugned order passed by the High Court Division, in the said Rule is nullity in the eye of law and are liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, this leave petition is disposed of. .....Minaz Ahmed =VS= Arif Motahar, (Criminal), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 499] ....View Full Judgment

Money Laundering Protirdoh Ain, 2002
Section 13
Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2009 & 2012
Section 4
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Section 540
Recalling of P.W.8 is nothing but with intention to delay and drag the case for indefinite period– Appears from the material on record the defence side filed petition on 02-12-21 under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in a belated stage i.e. after long 5 years more from the last date of the cross-examination of the P.W.8 when the prosecution had concluded the prosecution case. So, the recalling of P.W.8 is nothing but with intention to delay and drag the case for indefinite period of time. The Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal is disposed of. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court Division is set aside. .....Durnity Daman Commission, BD =VS= Dr. Khandaker Mosharraf Hossain, (Criminal), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 512] ....View Full Judgment

Code of Criminal Procedure [V of 1898]
Sections 497 and 498 read with
Money Laundering Prevention Act [V of 2012]
Section 13 read with
Criminal Law (Amendment) Act [XL of 1958]
Section 4(2)
Whether before taking cognizance of any offence by a competent Court having jurisdiction to try a case relating thereto filed under the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2004), in particular, under the Money Laundering Prevention Act, 2012 (in short, the Act of 2012), the Magistrate or any other Court having no jurisdiction to take cognizance thereof has got any authority to entertain and dispose of an application for bail.
The High Court Division held that while dealing with an application for bail, the Magistrate or the Court concerned will consider the materials furnished by the prosecution only and by considering those materials furnished by the prosecution, the Magistrate or the Court at his or its discretion may grant or refuse bail to the accused. At this juncture, the High Court Division feels tempted to reiterate that it is a settled proposition of law that the defence plea can only be raised and gone into at the time of trial of the case. This is essentially a matter of evidence and trial. Before conclusion of the trial of the case, the veracity of the defence plea can not be ascertained. At the pretrial stage, the defence plea can not be taken into account at any rate. But if a Judge or a Metropolitan/Judicial Magistrate does so, that will amount to begging the question. So this exercise is deprecated. The State -Vs.- M. Wahidul Haque and others (Criminal) 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 42 ....View Full Judgment

Code of Criminal Procedure [V of 1898]
Sections 497 and 498 read with
Money Laundering Prevention Act [V of 2012]
Section 13 read with
Criminal Law (Amendment) Act [XL of 1958]
Section 4(2)
The High Court Division further held that there is no express or implied provision within the four corners of the Act of 2012 debarring or prohibiting the Metropolitan or Judicial Magistracy from entertaining and dealing with any application for bail or remand at the pretrial stage, the Magistracy is well-authorized to entertain and deal therewith in accordance with the above-mentioned provisions of the Code. To sum up, at the pretrial stage, that is to say, from the date of lodgment of the FIR with the concerned Police Station till taking cognizance of the offence by the Senior Special Judge under section 4(2) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1958, the Judicial or Metropolitan Magistracy is empowered to entertain, deal with and dispose of any application for bail of an accused in a case under the Act of 2012 under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Similarly at the pretrial stage, in the absence of any express or implied prohibition in any other special law, the Metropolitan or Judicial Magistracy may entertain, deal with and dispose of any application for bail of an accused under section 497 of the Code. In case of rejection of his application for bail, he may move the Court of Session by filing a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under section 498 and thereafter in case of failure before the Court of Session, he can move the High Court Division under the self-same section 498 of the aforesaid Code for bail. In this connection, it is to be remembered that the powers of granting bail of the Court of Session and the High Court Division under section 498 of the Code are concurrent. Again after taking cognizance of any offence punishable under the Act of 2012, if an accused files an application for bail, then the Senior Special Judge/Special Judge concerned will hear and dis¬pose of the same in accordance with the provisions of section 13 of the Act of 2012. In case of refusal of bail by the Senior Special Judge or the Special Judge, as the case may be, the accused may prefer an appeal there against before the High Court Division under section 22 of the Act of 2012. The State -Vs.- M. Wahidul Haque and others (Criminal) 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 42 ....View Full Judgment

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

The Penal Code, 1860
Sections 409/408/467/468/471/109/420 r/w
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
Section 5(2) ,
The Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2002
Section 13,
The Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2009
Section 4(2) and
The Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2012
Section 4(2)(3)
We are of the view that it cannot be said that there exists no prima facie case against the respondent No.1. Without exhausting the trial stage, no decision can be taken regarding the allegations brought against him in the charge sheet under Sections 409/408/467/468/ 471/109/420 of the Penal Code read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Section 13 of the Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2002, Section 4(2) of the Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2009 and Section 4(2)(3) of the Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2012. The petition is disposed of. The judgment of the High Court Division is set aside. The order of the Mahanagar Senior Special Judge so far as it relates to the present respondent No.1 is also set aside. ...Durnity Daman Commission =VS= Ezbahul Bar Chowdhury, [10 LM (AD) 500] ....View Full Judgment

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Section 498
Money laundering Protirodh Ain, 2012
Section 13
Granting of bail is undoubtedly a discretion of the Court. But, that discretion has to be exercised upon a sound footing of laws governing the gamut of a particular case. It has to be remembered that, it is not the prima facie case against the accused respondent, but, the ‘reasonable grounds’ for believing that, he has been guilty__ is the concept of granting bail that gets paramount consideration. The Court has to examine the data available to connect whether reasonable grounds exist for considering, as such. The accused respondent was enlarged on bail within a very short period of time from the date of his arrest. Offence of this kind should not have been dealt with by the High Court Division in such a manner while granting bail to the accused respondent. Indeed, it was done hastily.
Besides, it has already been discussed under what circumstances confessional statements of co-accused becomes relevant and weighty. That being the position, Appellate Division is of the view that, the High Court Division has certainly misdirected itself enlarging the accused respondent on bail ignoring the settled principle of granting bail under section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court Division wrongly made the Rule absolute and enlarged the accused respondent on bail. So, this Division is inclined to interfere with the same. .....DC, Dhaka =VS= AHM Fuad, (Criminal), 2023(2) [15 LM (AD) 191] ....View Full Judgment

Money Laundering Prevention Act, 2002
Section 13 read with
section 4(2)/7 of the Money Laundering Prevention Act, 2009 and
Anti-Corruption Commission Ain 2002:
It appears that whenever any Act was amended or repealed by any Ordinance the Legislature continued giving effect of the previous law as if the previous law has not been repealed. Thus, the offence committed by the accused petitioner between 19.12.2005 to 16.01.2008 being within the period of continuation of the aforesaid law which were amended/repealed subsequently by different Ordinances/Acts, it cannot be said that the ACC did not have any authority to initiate, investigate, lodge FIR and continue to proceed with the case under the amended law it is to be deemed to have been committed under the law which has got a new life by the saving clause. …Md. Hafiz Ibrahim Vs. State & another, (Criminal), 15 SCOB [2021] AD 89 ....View Full Judgment

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

Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2012
Section 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 4(2)
Confiscated property— If anyone has claim or interest in the money/property attached/frozen or confiscated by the Court concerned, they can move before the competent Court for their redress— It is admitted fact that Anti- Corruption Commission till date did not make any notification in the newspaper in respect of the confiscated property as required under the law. Thus the Anti-Corruption Commission is directed to publish notice in the daily newspaper in regard to the confiscated property within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of this judgment and the respondent, decree holders, plaintiffs or any other claimant are at liberty to approach before the High Court Division for their respective claim if so advised. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of without any order as to costs. .....Durnity Daman Commission =VS= Md. Mizanur Rahman, (Civil), 2024(1) [16 LM (AD) 23] ....View Full Judgment

Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2012
Section 31(2)
The Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 111
Whenever any Act was amended or repealed by any Ordinance the Legislature continued giving effect of the previous law as if the previous law has not been repealed– It appears that whenever any Act was amended or repealed by any Ordinance the Legislature continued giving effect of the previous law as if the previous law has not been repealed. Thus, the offence committed by the accused petitioner between 19-12-2005 to 16-1-2008 being with in the period of continuation of the aforesaid law which were amended/repealed subsequently by different Ordinances/Acts, it cannot be said that the ACC did not have any authority to initiate. investigate, lodge FIR and continue to proceed with the case under the amended law it is to be deemed to have been committed under the law which has got a new life by the saving clause. Moreover, since it appears that from the date 'of framing of charge on 3-11-2015, the proceeding of the Case could not be concluded in last 5 (five) years because of-obstructions created by the accused petitioner by obtaining stay orders from higher court on different pleas, the submission made by the learned Advocate for the Accused petitioner has no substance in the eye of law. Hence the findings and decision arrived at by the High Court Division being based on proper appreciation of fact and law the same does not call for any interference by this Division. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial and conclude the same within 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of this judgment and order without any adjournment. .....Hafiz Ibrahim (Md), (Former MP) =VS= State, (Criminal), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 493] ....View Full Judgment

Jurisdiction of Special Judge in cases initiated by any agency other than the Anticorruption Commission under the Money Laundering Protirodh Ain:
The Special Judge appointed under the provision of Act of 1958 has no jurisdiction to deal with a case initiated under Money Laundering Protirodh Ain by any other investigation agency other than the case initiated by the Commission before taking cognizance. …Minaz Ahmed and another Vs. Arif Motahar and others, (Criminal), 16 SCOB [2022] AD 89 ....View Full Judgment

Jurisdiction of the Magistrate in cases initiated by any agency other than the Anticorruption Commission under the Money Laundering Protirodh Ain:
Thus, before submitting report as per provision of section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and taking cognizance of the offence by a Special Judge appointed under the Act of 1958 i.e. at the pre-time stage an accused has every right to move all kinds of applications including the application for bail before the Magistrate concerned where the case is pending and record lies. And as per provision of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Magistrate concerned has got the jurisdiction to deal with the matter in accordance with law. …Minaz Ahmed and another Vs. Arif Motahar and others, (Criminal), 16 SCOB [2022] AD 89 ....View Full Judgment