[🇧🇩] Corruption Watch

[Saif]

The Financial Express | First Financial Daily of Bangladesh

Get latest stock share market news, financial news, economy news, politics news, breaking news, Bangladesh economy news at The Financial Express.

thefinancialexpress.com.bd

Bangladesh-linked money in Swiss banks swells
Latest deposits amount to Tk 126.79 billion

Asjadul Kibria

Published :
Jun 19, 2026 00:16
Updated :
Jun 19, 2026 00:16

Bangladesh-linked money in Swiss banks ballooned further in 2025 by 41 per cent from the amount recorded in 2024 when there was a quantum leap of 232 per cent following previous two years' sharp decline.

The picture of much-talked-about 'Swiss bank balance' emerges from the Annual Banking Statistics 2025 released by the Swiss National Bank (SNB) in Zurich on Thursday.

According to the latest SNB data, total such deposits in Swiss banks -- including trade finances, investments, and funds held by Bangladeshi individuals and entities -- stood at CHF (Swiss Franc) 834.16 million last year.

Based on the current average exchange rate of Tk 152 per CHF, the amount is equivalent to approximately Tk 126.79 billion.

In 2024, the corresponding amount was CHF 589.54 million, or Tk 89.61 billion. The figures do not include deposits held through fiduciaries or wealth managers.

As the Bangladeshi taka (BDT) has depreciated against major foreign currencies over the past few years, figures converted to local currency using current exchange rates differ from those published previously by the FE.

Although Swiss bank deposits are often associated with stashed wealth, black money or illegally transferred assets from various countries, the SNB report does not provide any information on the nature or source of the funds.

Its statistics show Bangladesh-linked deposits had fallen to CHF 17.71 million (Tk 2.69 billion) in 2023 and CHF 55.27 million (Tk 8.40 billion) in 2022.

Deposits held by Bangladeshi and other non-Swiss individuals and entities are recorded under the "liabilities" section of Swiss banks' balance sheets.

These liabilities are mainly divided into two categories. The larger component, "amounts due to banks", accounted for CHF 822.71 million (Tk 125.06 billion) of Bangladesh-linked money in 2025.

The remaining CHF 11.45 million (Tk 1.74 billion) was classified as "amounts due in respect of customers' deposits".

The above-mentioned figures exclude deposits routed through fiduciaries or wealth managers. Bangladesh-linked deposits held through such channels amounted to CHF 8.31 million, or Tk 1.26 billion, last year.

A few years ago, Bangladesh Bank prepared an explanatory note on Bangladesh-linked deposits in Swiss banks.

The central bank argued that only around 10-15 per cent of such deposits belonged to individual clients, while the bulk of the money represented funds placed by banks for trade-related transactions.

According to Bangladesh Bank, therefore, only a small portion of the deposits may represent money transferred from Bangladesh and stashed abroad.

The SNB statistics also do not capture funds that Bangladesh-linked clients may have deposited through shadow entities or shell companies.

Meanwhile, total funds held by all foreign clients in Swiss banks declined further in 2025 to CHF 896.38 billion from CHF 977.12 billion in 2024 and CHF 983.45 billion in 2023.

The figure represents total liabilities of Swiss banks, excluding fiduciary liabilities.

The SNB data also show Indian deposits in Swiss banks declined by 7.78 per cent to CHF 3.23 billion in 2025 from CHF 3.50 billion in 2024.

Pakistani deposits also fell by around 13 per cent to CHF 236.35 million from CHF 271.67 million over the same period. These figures likewise exclude deposits held through fiduciaries.

Switzerland's banking system is known for maintaining strict depositor confidentiality -- a feature that has long contributed to the country's reputation as one of the world's leading tax havens.​

 

[Saif]

A chronicle of kleptocracy and plunder of banks

This region has seen many dictators in recent history, like Ayub Khan of Pakistan, Park Chung-hee of South Korea, Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore, Suharto of Indonesia, and Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines. Ayub, Suharto, and Park came to power through military coups. Lee and Marcos became heads of...

en.prothomalo.com

A chronicle of kleptocracy and plunder of banks
There are very few examples of one-third of a country’s banking-sector funds being lost through theft or robbery. Had the government performed its assigned role properly, and had Bangladesh Bank fulfilled its regulatory responsibilities effectively, such theft or robbery should not have occurred.

Mohiuddin Ahmad
Writer and Researcher
Published: 19 Jun 2026, 16: 11

This region has seen many dictators in recent history, like Ayub Khan of Pakistan, Park Chung-hee of South Korea, Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore, Suharto of Indonesia, and Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines. Ayub, Suharto, and Park came to power through military coups. Lee and Marcos became heads of government after winning elections. All of them were dictators. Yet there was one major difference among them.

The extraordinary development achieved by South Korea and Singapore over the past several decades owes much to the contributions of Park Chung-hee of South Korea, Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore. In the eyes of their citizens, they are known as “developmental dictators.” Within a remarkably short period, they elevated their countries to the level of Europe.

On the other hand, Pakistan, Indonesia, and the Philippines were unable to come close to achieving the same. The reason is that their rulers were not only dictators; they were also corrupt. They established kleptocracies in their respective countries. They themselves amassed enormous wealth.

The irony of history is that today it is difficult to find any landmark in Pakistan named after Ayub. He died in relative neglect and isolation.

Suharto and Marcos were overthrown by popular uprisings and fled their countries. They remained in exile for the rest of their lives.

Even after them, we have seen many dictators. In our own country, the most recent example was Sheikh Hasina. In her determination to remain in power, there was scarcely any misdemeanour she did not commit. She was joined by a group of plunderers and loyalist followers. Together, they sucked the country dry, squeezing it until little was left. Nearly all of the country’s institutions are now struggling with deep, festering wounds. The banking sector is one of the hardest hit.

At a post-budget press conference on 12 June, the Governor of Bangladesh Bank made what could be described as a “confessional” statement, saying that “one-third of the money in the banking sector has been stolen.”

The money that was stolen from the banks belonged to lower- and middle-income depositors. Wealthier individuals do not leave their money sitting idle in banks. What was stolen was the depositors’ money. Ordinary people had entrusted their savings to banks based on the belief that they would be able to withdraw their funds whenever they wished. The state and the government, through Bangladesh Bank, are responsible for safeguarding the interests of depositors.

From the statement of the Governor of Bangladesh Bank, it appears that the institution primarily responsible for fulfilling this duty has confined itself to merely describing the crime after it occurred. The Governor declared that theft had taken place, but he did not disclose whether any theft cases had been filed against those responsible.

Among the banks from which money was allegedly stolen, readers have learned through newspaper reports about various incidents involving the loss of depositors’ funds at Islami Bank Bangladesh PLC. Based on the details presented in those reports, the offence related to the change in ownership of the bank does not fall within the legal definition of “theft” under Sections 378 and 379 of the Penal Code. Rather, the elements described appear to correspond more closely to the legal definition of “robbery” under Sections 391 and 395 of the Penal Code.

Whether the crime is called theft or robbery, I have not heard that any of those who were entrusted with depositors’ funds, and from whose custody that money disappeared, have filed a theft or robbery case in connection with the offence. Should we then assume that bank officials or owners were unaware that when depositors’ money is stolen, a criminal complaint for theft must be filed against the perpetrators?

Some may argue that cases concerning the misappropriation of funds have already been filed and that, in at least one instance, a court has even imposed punishment. What I am saying is that no case was filed specifically on charges of theft or robbery. The cases that were filed concerned other types of offences.

I am discussing two serious crimes that are familiar to everyone: theft and robbery. There is no need to explain what theft and robbery are. Everyone understands these concepts very well.

If the dramatic accounts published in newspapers regarding the replacement of the chairman of Islami Bank Bangladesh PLC during the tenure of Sheikh Hasina are accurate, then I see no reason why a robbery case should not have been filed over that incident. The then-chairman, who would have been the victim of that event, does not appear to have filed any robbery case from that time until now. Likewise, there is no indication that any subsequent governors filed theft or robbery cases either.

Nor have I heard that any of the officials or board members of the banks from which money was stolen or looted fulfilled their legal responsibilities by filing theft or robbery cases.

Under existing law, anyone who was aware that a theft or robbery had occurred but failed to report it may have committed an offence punishable by imprisonment or a fine under Section 176 of the Penal Code. Readers should remember that, under criminal law, there is generally no statute of limitations barring the allegation, investigation, or prosecution of criminal offences.

The supreme law of the country is the Constitution. Article 21 of our Constitution identifies the protection of national property as a civic duty of every citizen. Scholars may continue to debate whether the private deposits held by bank customers should be regarded as national property. However, the money lost through theft or robbery constitutes evidence of a crime.

The governor has said that the money lost by depositors through bank thefts or robberies will be repaid. But this money ultimately comes from the taxes paid by the country’s 180 million people. In this country, even the poor contribute through VAT and other taxes. How ethical, then, is this decision?

Under our country’s Evidence Act, the statement made by the Governor of Bangladesh Bank would be admissible as strong and highly valuable evidence for identifying the culprits and conducting an investigation or trial. The Governor and the officials of Bangladesh Bank working under his supervision have presumably already identified both the theft and those responsible for it. All that remains is to file a case in court and provide testimony; once that is done, the perpetrators can be brought within the reach of punishment.

Judges of our criminal courts could, if they chose, bring such a case under expedited trial on their own initiative. If an enterprising judge were to arrange for the swift prosecution of the offenders, there would be no need to use money earned through the labor and sweat of our farmers and workers to reimburse depositors.

There are very few examples of one-third of a country’s banking-sector funds being lost through theft or robbery. Had the government performed its assigned role properly, and had Bangladesh Bank fulfilled its regulatory responsibilities effectively, such theft or robbery should not have occurred.

For that reason, the possible involvement of influential figures in the government of the time warrants scrutiny. If theft or robbery cases were filed, that issue would naturally come before the courts on its own.

The judicial system currently in force in the country was originally introduced by a foreign trading company. The military commander who led that company’s conquest of Bengal received such an enormous sum of money from what was then the country’s most powerful businessman, often described as the “Banker of the World”, that, after returning home, Robert Clive became one of the wealthiest men in Europe.

India was regarded as the “Jewel in the Crown” of the British Empire. After Clive conquered that jewel, the British ruler who later expanded and consolidated imperial rule was Warren Hastings. Both Clive and Warren Hastings were subjected to impeachment proceedings by their own country. They were publicly tried. Among the allegations against them was that they had plundered the wealth of Bengal and India.

Meanwhile, we have confined ourselves merely to declaring that theft has occurred. More regrettably, even the theft of Bangladesh Bank reserves has not been brought to justice. Will kleptocracy continue unabated?

* Mohiuddin Ahmad, writer and researcher​