Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2002
Sections 2 (ঠ) (অ) (আ) 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 (১) (অ) (আ) 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, [9 LM (AD) 348]
Section 2(ঠ)-To construe an offence of money laundering under the Ain it is not necessary to prove that money in question is to be transferred from Bangladesh to any other country or to be brought it to Bangladesh from other countries illegally. Rather, acquisition of wealth by illegal means, directly or indirectly, and illegal transfer, conversion, concealment of acquired wealth, either legally or illegally and aiding in accomplishing any of those acts may be considered as money laundering. Durnity Daman Commission vs Md Tarique Rahman, 68 DLR 500 Section 2(8)-Acquiring wealth illegally, directly or indirectly, and any illegal transfer, conversion, concealment of acquired wealth, either legally or illegally, and assisting in accomplishing any of those acts will come within the mischief of 'money laundering'. ACC vs Md Tarique Rahman, 68 DLR 500 Section 2(ঠ) (অ) (আ)-Dirty Money- Rahman belonging to a political class which was saddled with the responsibility of directing the affairs of the country had acted as a conscious part of the financial crime. He being the mighty political elite by virtue of his position obtained dirty money in the name of 'consultation fee' through his close cohort's [convict Giasuddin Al-Mamun]. This kind of corruption being backed by political influence threatens good governance, sustainable development, and democratic process. ACC vs Md Tarique Rahman, 68 DLR 500