Bangladesh - Hasina regime corruption

NASSA Group Chairman Nazrul siphoned off $3bn to USA: CID
BSS

October 2, 2024

View attachment 69165

The Criminal Investigation Department (CID) has found that the detained NASSA Group Chairman Nazrul Islam Majumder has laundered three million US dollars to America through "trade based money laundering".

According to a press release of the CID, its preliminary inquiry has found that Nazrul siphoned off the money to the USA by exporting goods against 130 LCs/sales contracts in the name of Firoza Garments Ltd, a sister concern of NASSA Group, from the National Bank Ltd from 2020 to 2024.

The CID has claimed that they have proof in their hands that Nazrul earned 3 billion US dollars through exporting goods and did not bring back the money to the country despite the passage of the stipulated time aimed at laundering the amount.

The CID has also got an allegation that Nazrul purchased a house in the United Kingdom (UK) after his daughter Anika Islam's name by siphoning off money.

The CID release also said, Nazrul evaded taxes of crores of money by selling the raw materials which he imported from abroad under tax-free bond coverage and sold those in the country's open markets.

The release also said that Nazrul took loan of Tk 21,000 crore in favor of four organizations of NASSA Group and laundered hundreds of crores of money in different countries such as Dubai in UAE, the UK, Canada, Singapore and Thailand through under voicing and over voicing. under the guise of export and import.

Nazrul Islam Majumder, who was also chairman of the Exim Bank and President of Bankers Association of Bangladesh (BAB) was arrested from the city's Gulshan area by police on Tuesday night.


@UKBengali, the article mentions “trade based money laundering” lol

Do you know what that is?

If it means “under invoicing” and “profit siphoning” - that’s not illegal. Perfectly valid tax avoidance measures used by the likes of Google and Amazon.

@Joe Shearer and @SoulSpokesman

There seems to be a lot of random and unhinged mud slinging here - desperately hoping something sticks!
 
Kola bhai,

There seems to be a lot of random and unhinged mudslinging here

Not just here. But on real ground i.e physically in Bangladesh as well

Regards
 
@UKBengali, the article mentions “trade based money laundering” lol

Do you know what that is?

If it means “under invoicing” and “profit siphoning” - that’s not illegal. Perfectly valid tax avoidance measures used by the likes of Google and Amazon.

@Joe Shearer and @SoulSpokesman

There seems to be a lot of random and unhinged mud slinging here - desperately hoping something sticks!

No, TBML isn't only about under invoicing. There are multiple different types of TBML.

And under/over invoicing is never legal as they have tax implications and therefore the act is an illegal activity in almost every country. Simply put it is an act of fraud.

If you think this is legal just because everyone does it, you need to reevaluate your moral and ethical standpoint in your personal life.

Here is a good summary for those who want to understand more about TBML -
 

Attachments

Bangladesh Probes Hasina’s Niece for Corruption in Russian Nuclear Power Deal

But are the allegations against the former British MP politically motivated? Is the Yunus-led interim government settling scores with Hasina?

By Mubashar Hasan
January 27, 2025


View attachment 97505

Tulip Siddiq, a British-Bangladeshi member of the British Parliament for the Labor Party and formerly a senior anti-corruption minister in Keir Starmer’s government, recently resigned from her ministerial position amid intense scrutiny and public pressure.

The niece of Bangladesh’s former authoritarian Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, Siddiq faced widespread media scrutiny in the United Kingdom regarding the sources of funding for two properties linked to associates of the Awami League, the political party led by her aunt in Bangladesh. These properties, gifted in 2004 and 2009, were allegedly acquired over 20 years ago, with one currently owned by Siddiq.

In response to public concerns, Siddiq voluntarily referred herself to the U.K. government’s Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, Sir Laurie Magnus, to address potential conflicts of interest. After the investigation, Sir Laurie concluded that Siddiq had “inadvertently misled” the public regarding a flat gifted to her by an ally of Hasina, but he found no evidence of deliberate wrongdoing. However, the BBC reported criticism from Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, who accused the prime minister of delaying action to protect Siddiq.

Around the same time, Bangladesh’s Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) accused Siddiq and her family of embezzling billions of dollars in connection with the Rooppur Nuclear Power Plant deal signed between Bangladesh and Russia in 2013.

Although Siddiq denied involvement, a photograph from the signing ceremony — showing her alongside Hasina, her mother Sheikh Rehana, and other family members with Russian President Vladimir Putin — sparked speculation about her role in the deal.

Iftekharuzzaman, the executive director of Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB), told The Diplomat that Siddiq’s presence at the signing of the nuclear power deal warrants further investigation, given the allegations of significant kickbacks.

The ACC has filed criminal cases against Siddiq and her family, including allegations of acquiring government land through abuse of power. The investigation extends to Hasina, Rehana, and her siblings, Radwan Mujib Siddiq Bobby and Azmina Siddiq.

Referring to the case, Iftekharuzzaman of TIB believes the allegation indicates stronger evidence of wrongdoing in Tulip’s acquisition of government land alongside her family members, suggesting a “collusive abuse of power.”

Commentators like Salil Tripathi have argued that Siddiq’s case reflects the intersection of British and Bangladeshi politics.

However, it is worth pondering whether the allegations against Siddiq in Bangladesh are politically motivated.

Parallels are being drawn between the Muhammad Yunus-led interim government’s allegations against Siddiq and Hasina’s relentless harassment of Yunus when she was in power. Some believe that if Hasina had remained in power, Yunus would have likely faced imprisonment, making the current scrutiny of Siddiq appear as a retaliatory move during a politically opportune moment.
https://www.actirise.com/?utm_source=thediplomat.com&utm_campaign=intext
However, Shafiqul Alam, Yunus’ press secretary, rejected this argument. He told The Diplomat that the investigations into Siddiq are part of routine state procedures following evidence of anomalies. He dismissed claims of political motivation, emphasizing that the relevant institutions are acting on their findings.

Bobby Hajjaj, founder and chairman of the Nationalist Democratic Movement, was among the first to accuse Siddiq of involvement in the nuclear power plant deal. In an interview with The Diplomat, Hajjaj alleged that Siddiq served as a lobbyist to secure international legitimacy for Hasina’s authoritarian rule and acted as a conduit for transferring illicit funds to the United Kingdom. Hajjaj said that investigating Siddiq is critical to exposing Hasina’s alleged crimes and dismantling the networks that facilitated them.

Dismissing concerns about his political motivations, Hajjaj asserted that the overwhelming evidence against Siddiq outweighs any political considerations.

Bangladesh’s ACC has a questionable record. Its functioning in the past was not impartial, raising questions about its credibility. During Hasina’s rule, her regime used the ACC as a political tool to repress the opposition. For example, it carried out a shoddy investigation against Hasina’s rival and former Bangladesh Prime Minister Khaleda Zia of the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party. It also went after Tarique Rahman, BNP’s acting chairman and Zia’s son.

However, anti-corruption experts claim that the ACC is more independent now. According to Iftekharuzzaman, the ACC appears to be serious in pursuing investigations without fear or favor. Nevertheless, its long-term credibility and effectiveness remain uncertain, he said.

In conclusion, Tulip Siddiq’s case encapsulates the intricate intersection of politics, power, and accountability across borders. While the allegations against her raise valid concerns about transparency and ethical governance, they also highlight the complexities of political motivations, especially in the context of Bangladesh’s evolving political climate.

As investigations proceed in Bangladesh, the outcomes will likely influence public perceptions of Siddiq’s political career in the United Kingdom.


Again, it will be miracle to find one person from this fake sheikh cult family with good character. They are rotten from inside and out.

Supposedly, this person was born and raised in the UK, but all the goodness of the UK could not erase the natural tendency for stealing. What a waste!

on a side note, all the makeup could not make this person good looking either.
 
No, TBML isn't only about under invoicing. There are multiple different types of TBML.

And under/over invoicing is never legal as they have tax implications and therefore the act is an illegal activity in almost every country. Simply put it is an act of fraud.

If you think this is legal just because everyone does it, you need to reevaluate your moral and ethical standpoint in your personal life.

Here is a good summary for those who want to understand more about TBML -

So, this is “moral”?

Are these “morals” enforceable in a court of law?

Legal, ethical and moral aren’t mutually inclusive!

Tax avoidance may be immoral but it’s perfectly legal. The reason it’s legal is because - in a globalised world - it’s impossible to enforce.

Raising “moral” issues related to global trade and finance is fine. Just don’t conflate it with the law.

@UKBengali, has the IG found a clear case of law breaking to date or is it still fishing?

Get on with clear case of law breaking and stop wasting time discussing “morality”.

@Joe Shearer
@UKBengali
@SoulSpokesman
 
So, this is “moral”?

Are these “morals” enforceable in a court of law?

Legal, ethical and moral aren’t mutually inclusive!

Tax avoidance may be immoral but it’s perfectly legal. The reason it’s legal is because - in a globalised world - it’s impossible to enforce.

Raising “moral” issues related to global trade and finance is fine. Just don’t conflate it with the law.

@UKBengali, has the IG found a clear case of law breaking to date or is it still fishing?

Get on with clear case of law breaking and stop wasting time discussing “morality”.

@Joe Shearer
@UKBengali
@SoulSpokesman

Btw, under invoicing to avoid tax is perfectly legal.

Here’s one that everyone uses in the U.K..

We have a sliding scale stamp duty tax on house purchase. E.g. houses over 500k is in a higher tax bracket.

Let’s say you agreed a sale at 520k

A good accountant will advise you to pay for the “fixtures and fittings” separately.

Thus you save thousands on stamp duty.

As a first time buyer it could be much more.

Seems like people bleating about corruption have no idea how global finance works!!!
 
Last edited:
So, this is “moral”?

Are these “morals” enforceable in a court of law?

Legal, ethical and moral aren’t mutually inclusive!

Tax avoidance may be immoral but it’s perfectly legal. The reason it’s legal is because - in a globalised world - it’s impossible to enforce.

Raising “moral” issues related to global trade and finance is fine. Just don’t conflate it with the law.

@UKBengali, has the IG found a clear case of law breaking to date or is it still fishing?

Get on with clear case of law breaking and stop wasting time discussing “morality”.

@Joe Shearer
@UKBengali
@SoulSpokesman

No matter how many paragraphs you write, an illegal act remains an illegal act. It is as if you are trying to justify stealing. What next? Murder is legal?

Under over invoicing has direct impact on a business's bottom line, therefore it violates tax law. Therefore an illegal act. Period.

If a publicly listed company is involved in under over invoicing - then the fraud goes to the next level as it can be used to influence the price of shares. Again - an illegal act.

Also - I don't think you even understand the difference between legal tax avoidance measures manipulating legal loopholes versus outright fraudulent and illegal act.

As for my comment on the check on ethical and moral standpoint - that was my suggestion to you to reflect on your personal life choices. If you are out here justifying fraud, next thing will be you committing it out there in real life. Take the suggestion or leave it, none of my business.
 
Btw, under invoicing to avoid tax is perfectly legal.

Here’s one that everyone uses in the U.K..

We have a sliding scale stamp duty tax on house purchase. E.g. houses over 500k is in a higher tax bracket.

Let’s say you agreed a sale at 520k

A good accountant will advise you to pay for the “fixtures and fittings” separately.

Thus you save thousands on stamp duty.

As a first time buyer it could be much more.

Seems like people bleating about corruption have no idea how global finance works!!!

As I suspected - you don't understand the difference between legal tax avoidance measures and illegal actions to avoid tax.

I am quoting UK laws for you below. It is an illegal act per your own country's rules. You need to read up on your own country's rules and follow them.


The act of concealment may include

  • creating false invoices to support inaccurate figures in the return
  • invoice routing, for example the purported sale or purchase of goods through a tax haven company (with no activity undertaken by that company even though contracts exist showing the contrary) leaving profits untaxed in that company
  • creating sales records that deliberately understate the value of the goods sold, the balance of the full price being paid separately to the person
  • describing expenditure in the business records in such a way as to make it appear to be business related when it is in fact private (possibly with the supplier agreeing to change the description on the relevant invoices)
  • altering genuine purchase invoices to inflate their value
Although the penalties for deliberate inaccuracies are civil monetary penalties, we also have a criminal investigation policy and will refer the most serious cases for consideration of criminal proceedings where appropriate.
 
No matter how many paragraphs you write, an illegal act remains an illegal act. It is as if you are trying to justify stealing. What next? Murder is legal?

Under over invoicing has direct impact on a business's bottom line, therefore it violates tax law. Therefore an illegal act. Period.

If a publicly listed company is involved in under over invoicing - then the fraud goes to the next level as it can be used to influence the price of shares. Again - an illegal act.

Also - I don't think you even understand the difference between legal tax avoidance measures manipulating legal loopholes versus outright fraudulent and illegal act.

As for my comment on the check on ethical and moral standpoint - that was my suggestion to you to reflect on your personal life choices. If you are out here justifying fraud, next thing will be you committing it out there in real life. Take the suggestion or leave it, none of my business.

It’s clear that you have no idea what you are talking about because you talk in riddles!

I just gave you a specific example!

Anyway, it’s pointless debating with you!

I will await the responses from @UKBengali @SoulSpokesman and @Joe Shearer
 
As I suspected - you don't understand the difference between legal tax avoidance measures and illegal actions to avoid tax.

I am quoting UK laws for you below. It is an illegal act per your own country's rules. You need to read up on your own country's rules and follow them.


The act of concealment may include

  • creating false invoices to support inaccurate figures in the return
  • invoice routing, for example the purported sale or purchase of goods through a tax haven company (with no activity undertaken by that company even though contracts exist showing the contrary) leaving profits untaxed in that company
  • creating sales records that deliberately understate the value of the goods sold, the balance of the full price being paid separately to the person
  • describing expenditure in the business records in such a way as to make it appear to be business related when it is in fact private (possibly with the supplier agreeing to change the description on the relevant invoices)
  • altering genuine purchase invoices to inflate their value
Although the penalties for deliberate inaccuracies are civil monetary penalties, we also have a criminal investigation policy and will refer the most serious cases for consideration of criminal proceedings where appropriate.

And I just told you no one creates false invoices because it’s easier to avoid tax legally!

Do you get that?!!!

Google and Amazon pays virtually zero tax on 100s of billions of revenue!

Anyway, no more response to you!
 
And I just told you no one creates false invoices because it’s easier to avoid tax legally!

Do you get that?!!!

Google and Amazon pays virtually zero tax on 100s of billions of revenue!

Anyway, no more response to you!

You were claiming under/over invoicing being legal and now switching direction to Google Amazon as soon as I threw the UK rule book at you to prove under/over invoicing is an illegal act.

Yes, don't bother responding because you are essentially trying to justify an illegal fraudulent act. And this forum does not condone illegal activities.

I am looping in @Musings to review posts # 46 -55 - since if I take Mod action you will start crying about bias.
 
You were claiming under/over invoicing being legal and now switching direction to Google Amazon as soon as I threw the UK rule book at you to prove under/over invoicing is an illegal act.

Yes, don't bother responding because you are essentially trying to justify an illegal fraudulent act. And this forum does not condone illegal activities.

I am looping in @Musings to review posts # 46 -55 - since if I take Mod action you will start crying about bias.

This is going to be really the final response because you have zero comprehension.

Read my post - I said FALSE INVOICES!!!

I just gave a specific example of under invoicing re home purchase.

Over invoicing is also legal - get a good accountant!

As someone once said, “what’s the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion?”

Answer: very expensive accountant!
 
This is going to be really the final response because you have zero comprehension.

Read my post - I said FALSE INVOICES!!!

I just gave a specific example of under invoicing re home purchase.

Over invoicing is also legal - get a good accountant!

As someone once said, “what’s the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion?”

Answer: very expensive accountant!

@UKBengali @Joe Shearer and @SoulSpokesman

Here’s how garments owners may have avoided tax using Google’s practices.

Western retailer places an order for £500k with a Bahamas based shell company. The shell company charges 300k for “order procurement” services commission - leaving 200k for the factory business. And 200k covers the cost exactly - leaving zero profits. Hence zero tax.

Is this moral - NO!
Is this legal - HELL YES!!!
 
@UKBengali @Joe Shearer and @SoulSpokesman

Here’s how garments owners may have avoided tax using Google’s practices.

Western retailer places an order for £500k with a Bahamas based shell company. The shell company charges 300k for “order procurement” services commission - leaving 200k for the factory business. And 200k covers the cost exactly - leaving zero profits. Hence zero tax.

Is this moral - NO!
Is this legal - HELL YES!!!

Refer to your post # 46

You specifically called out under invoicing being not illegal, which I have debunked with reference to UK laws since you made the claim again that it is legal in UK in post#51.

The example above is not that of under invoicing but that of intercompany charge. Again, these depend on whether they are allowed and legal under a specific tax jurisdiction. They may be allowed in some jurisdiction but not in others. But intercompany charge wasn't our point of discussion.

You are simply shifting goal posts. Just accept you were wrong about claiming under invoicing being legal and move on.
 
Refer to your post # 46

You specifically called out under invoicing being not illegal, which I have debunked with reference to UK laws since you made the claim again that it is legal in UK in post#51.

The example above is not that of under invoicing but that of intercompany charge. Again, these depend on whether they are allowed and legal under a specific tax jurisdiction. They may be allowed in some jurisdiction but not in others. But intercompany charge wasn't our point of discussion.

You are simply shifting goal posts. Just accept you were wrong about claiming under invoicing being legal and move on.

Now you are going to define “under invoicing” lol

Given that’s how they have avoided tax and prevented repatriation of profits to BD - you cannot touch them under the law.

Because they used LEGAL ways to avoid tax.

You want people to believe they used “false invoices” when it’s easier to use “under invoicing” as I described above.

It’s just wishful thinking!

I just explained how they avoided paying tax. And it’s perfectly legal!!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top