Asset recovery: Bangladesh’s path to justice and redemption

The sheer volume of assets stolen from Bangladesh is staggering and demands immediate, sincere attention. As detailed in a white paper commissioned by the interim government, estimates range between $100 billion and $200 billion — an indication of the vast scale of the plunder.

Bangladesh's banks have been looted brazenly, often under the very noses of the regulators. Around $35 billion was siphoned off despite repeated warnings. Yet the former regime of Sheikh Hasina did nothing to stop it. Her rule has come to symbolise systemic looting, corruption and the weaponisation of the judiciary and law enforcement. The consequences have tarnished not only her name but also her father's legacy.

Soon after assuming office, the interim government — and particularly Dr Ahsan H Mansur, governor of Bangladesh Bank, economist, and former senior IMF official — declared war on money launderers. While some progress has been made, the enormity of the task is daunting. 

The unprecedented theft is the result of a weak banking system and even weaker regulators who allowed the illegal takeover of banks. The brazen embezzlement by kleptocrats close to Sheikh Hasina has driven the economy to the brink of collapse, leaving the country facing deep uncertainty.

A faltering start

So far, the asset recovery initiatives have resembled a headless chicken — moving without direction or coordination. The process should have begun decisively but instead has been slow, indecisive, and hampered by administrative confusion and a lack of leadership. Task force members seem more concerned with control than with tangible results.

To succeed, the process must be decentralised, proactive, swift and confidential. Publicising every small success on social media only alerts perpetrators. The better approach is to establish a decentralised public–private partnership that draws on the strengths of multiple institutions, supported by effective coordination and a long-term strategy.

Despite its complexity, success is achievable with the right approach. Recovering even a portion of the $35–50 billion stolen from banks and the $100–200 billion moved abroad through trade-based mechanisms would be a historic achievement. Early, visible successes would not only retrieve assets and advance justice but also deter future corruption and institutionalise asset recovery as a national capability.

Decentralising recovery: A public–private partnership model

Asset recovery is a complex, resource-intensive process that unfolds in several stages: tracing, freezing, confiscation, and repatriation. Each phase involves intricate legal and procedural hurdles requiring international cooperation, often through Mutual Legal Assistance requests (MLAs).

Bangladesh's banks, both state-owned and private, are burdened with roughly Tk1,400 billion in non-performing loans — much of it stemming from theft by politically connected kleptocrats. A creative, multi-pronged approach is needed. Many litigation funders believe 20–30% of the stolen assets may still be recoverable, given the sloppy concealment methods used.

Over the past ten months, the task force has attempted to engage law firms, funders, and forensic experts but has failed to share critical data with them. Non-Disclosure Agreements have been awaiting approval from the Bangladesh Bank's legal department for months, while draft laws remain stuck at the Attorney General's office.

Centralised efforts limited to criminal prosecutions have achieved little beyond issuing MLAs and local freezing orders. The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), despite its commendable energy, cannot succeed through criminal proceedings alone. Coordination, data sharing, and partnerships with international law firms and forensic experts are urgently needed.

The task force still lacks administrative authority and decision-making capacity. While the Bangladesh Bank should lead, vested interests are hindering progress. Asset recovery is not only about retrieving money but also about delivering justice to those responsible for destroying public trust in the banking system.

Decentralisation is thus essential. Since most of the stolen money originated from banks, these institutions should be empowered to pursue recovery independently, complementing state efforts.

Civil versus criminal: Clarifying the roles

Banks and financial institutions (civil claims): Mounting civil claims is often a faster and more effective route to recovery. When stolen assets are laundered through the banking system—through fraudulent loans or export scams — the affected banks have a direct financial interest and should lead civil recovery suits in foreign jurisdictions.

Civil forfeiture is particularly valuable when criminal convictions are difficult to secure. Civil cases require a lower standard of proof (balance of probabilities) and can proceed in absentia if due service is made. Civil courts can freeze assets, lift bank secrecy, and issue search warrants—tools that complement criminal prosecutions.

Allowing banks to pursue civil claims while the state pursues criminal cases creates twin pressure on kleptocrats. It also empowers banks to manage their own processes and recover their money more efficiently. However, officials must recognise that public procurement rules do not apply to these specialised international legal services. Subjecting civil claims to bureaucratic tendering would paralyse the process.

Anti-Corruption Commission (criminal forfeiture): The ACC remains the primary agency for criminal prosecutions, pursuing confiscation orders for crimes such as bribery, embezzlement, or unexplained wealth. The Bangladesh Financial Intelligence Unit (BFIU) is supposed to provide crucial data but has yet to share concrete figures. The Attorney General's office, meanwhile, lacks sufficient resources and expertise to manage such complex international cases effectively.

Criminal prosecutions are slow and bureaucratic, often dependent on the priorities of foreign states. Even when successful, repatriation depends on the confiscating country's consent, which determines how and where the returned funds may be used — typically for development projects.

Coordination and speed: The need for a central command

Decentralisation without coordination risks chaos. The current asset recovery process lacks leadership, structure, and direction. A high-level, independent National Asset Recovery Agency (NARA) is urgently required. This agency should include representatives from all relevant bodies but be led by a person of proven integrity, international stature, and legal expertise, ideally with ministerial authority. Many recommend placing NARA under the Prime Minister's Office to streamline decisions and overcome bureaucratic inertia.

NARA would act as central command — deciding which cases follow the civil (bank-led) or criminal (ACC-led) route, encouraging banks to participate, and serving as a secure clearinghouse for intelligence and evidence. It would also prevent Bangladeshi institutions from taking contradictory legal positions abroad.

An international consultant with banking expertise is already advising the task force. Every participating department must fully cooperate with this expert to build a solid foundation for a sustainable recovery platform.

Managing international partnerships

Engaging global law firms and recovery specialists is expensive and complex. If individual agencies negotiate separately, Bangladesh risks unfavourable deals. The government must supervise, but not micromanage, the engagement process to ensure transparency and value for money. Agreements should be case-specific, based on a model contract with standardised terms for fees, confidentiality, and reporting.

NARA should standardise engagement terms, adopting hybrid fee structures that combine hourly billing with success-based contingencies. This approach aligns incentives and limits upfront costs. Local lawyers must also be part of every engagement to ensure knowledge transfer and continuity. International firms should be required to work closely with Bangladeshi counterparts, mentoring them through each stage.

Asset recovery cases can take five to twenty years to conclude. This underscores the need to develop a domestic cadre of trained professionals capable of handling such cases independently in the future.

The vital role of local counsel

Local law firms must not serve merely as intermediaries for international firms. They should be full partners, leveraging their networks and legal insight. Their roles include:

Evidence gathering: Helping the ACC and banks compile admissible, forensically sound evidence for foreign courts.

Contextual advice: Explaining local business practices, laws, and political realities often overlooked by international teams.

Liaison and coordination: Ensuring effective communication and procedural alignment between Bangladeshi institutions and international partners, while maintaining due process.

Local counsel will also play a critical role in repatriating recovered funds and ensuring compliance with both domestic and international judgments.

Building capacity: A long-term investment

Asset recovery is a marathon requiring patience, skill, and institutional learning. It demands expertise in international law, forensic accounting, and diplomacy. Bangladesh should seize this moment to build its own capacity.

All international engagements should include mandatory knowledge transfer components — training for judges, prosecutors, and bankers; secondments for young lawyers; and workshops led by global experts. Joint teams of local and international lawyers should become standard practice. Firms unwilling to support such collaboration should not be engaged.

Asset recovery: A path to national redemption

Despite delays and early missteps, Bangladesh's asset recovery process has finally begun to take shape. Lessons are being learned, and the groundwork for success is being laid. The recent meeting chaired by the Bangladesh Bank Governor — attended by 34 banks, both public and private—marked a turning point. Banks resolved to mount their own recovery claims with the support of 12 external partners, including forensic experts, litigation funders, law firms, and communications specialists.

This initiative presents an opportunity for any future government to make asset recovery the centrepiece of its anti-corruption agenda. Beyond reclaiming stolen wealth, it can institutionalise international recovery mechanisms, build expertise, and create new professional opportunities.

Progress will depend on vision, coordination, and professionalism. Policymakers must approach the process with conviction, learning from successful global cases such as Brazil's Petrobras scandal, Nigeria's Abacha recovery, Saudi Arabia's Ritz-Carlton purge, Malaysia's 1MDB case, China's pursuit of Anil Ambani, and the Madoff Ponzi scheme in the United States.

Effective strategic communication is vital — not only to mobilise public support but to reaffirm Bangladesh's commitment to justice and the rule of law. Asset recovery is more than reclaiming stolen wealth; it is an act of national restoration. With determination and a coherent strategy, Bangladesh can turn this immense challenge into a moment of redemption and renewal.

Barrister Zeshan Mohsen is an advocate at the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, and a Partner at AAZ & Partners.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.