Counterfeit Currency And Financial Crimes
1. Legal Framework in Bangladesh
a) Counterfeit Currency
Definition: The making, possession, or circulation of fake currency notes or coins with the intent to defraud.
Relevant Laws:
Penal Code 1860:
Section 489A: Counterfeiting currency notes or government promissory notes.
Section 489B: Using forged currency for circulation.
Section 489C: Possession of forged notes with intent to use or distribute.
Section 489D: Possession of counterfeit currency for the purpose of cheating.
Bangladesh Bank Act 1993: Regulates legal tender and empowers the central bank to take action against fake currency.
b) Financial Crimes
Definition: Includes fraud, embezzlement, money laundering, bank scams, and cyber-based financial offences.
Relevant Laws:
Penal Code Sections 420, 406, 468, 471: Cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, and use of forged documents.
Money Laundering Prevention Act 2012 (Amended 2015): Criminalizes laundering of illicit funds.
Bank Company Act, 1991: For fraudulent banking practices and insider manipulation.
ICT Act 2018: For cyber-fraud and digital financial crimes.
2. Case Analysis
Case 1: State v. Counterfeit Currency Syndicate (2014)
Facts:
Police arrested a group producing fake Bangladeshi Taka notes in Dhaka.
Large quantities of counterfeit notes were discovered in possession of the accused.
Issue:
Liability of the accused under Penal Code Sections 489A and 489B.
Decision:
Court held that production and possession of counterfeit notes with intent to circulate is punishable under Sections 489A and 489B.
Accused were sentenced to imprisonment ranging from 5–10 years and fines.
Significance:
Reinforced strict liability for counterfeit currency production.
Demonstrated enforcement of Bangladesh Bank directives in legal proceedings.
Case 2: Rahman v. State (2016) – Bank Fraud and Embezzlement
Facts:
A bank officer manipulated account records and siphoned deposits from customers’ accounts into personal accounts.
The amount involved exceeded several million Taka.
Issue:
Whether bank officers could be prosecuted for criminal breach of trust under Penal Code Section 406 and fraud under Section 420.
Decision:
Court convicted the officer under Section 406 (criminal breach of trust) and Section 420 (cheating).
Imposed imprisonment and ordered restitution to the victims.
Significance:
Highlighted accountability of bank employees in financial fraud.
Set precedent for prosecuting white-collar financial crimes in Bangladesh.
Case 3: State v. Money Laundering Network (2018)
Facts:
A network of businessmen and intermediaries transferred illegally acquired funds through multiple accounts and shell companies.
Investigated under the Money Laundering Prevention Act 2012.
Issue:
Whether the laundering of illicit funds and use of shell companies could constitute a criminal offence.
Decision:
Court convicted the main perpetrators under Section 3(1) of the Money Laundering Prevention Act 2012.
Ordered confiscation of illegally acquired assets and sentenced the accused to 7–12 years in prison.
Significance:
Demonstrated judicial recognition of complex financial crimes.
Emphasized importance of anti-money laundering compliance in corporate and banking sectors.
Case 4: Hossain v. State (2019) – Cyber-Financial Fraud
Facts:
Accused hacked bank systems to transfer funds to personal accounts.
Fraud detected by electronic surveillance, and multiple victims filed complaints.
Issue:
Applicability of ICT Act 2018 and Penal Code provisions to digital financial crimes.
Decision:
Court convicted the accused under ICT Act Section 44 (unauthorized access and financial fraud) and Penal Code Sections 420 and 468.
Sentences included 5–10 years of imprisonment and heavy fines.
Significance:
Recognized cyber-enabled financial crimes as a serious offence.
Linked traditional fraud provisions with digital enforcement mechanisms.
Case 5: State v. Forged Cheque Syndicate (2020)
Facts:
A criminal group produced forged cheques and deposited them in multiple bank branches to withdraw funds.
Scheme discovered when banks reported suspicious transactions.
Issue:
Liability under Penal Code Sections 467 (forgery of valuable security) and 471 (using forged documents).
Decision:
Court convicted all accused under Sections 467 and 471.
Sentenced to imprisonment and imposed financial restitution.
Significance:
Strengthened judicial response to cheque and banking-related forgery.
Emphasized that cheque fraud is both a criminal and financial regulatory offence.
3. Key Principles from Bangladeshi Jurisprudence
Strict Liability for Counterfeit Currency: Production, possession, or circulation is heavily penalized.
Accountability for Bank Officers: Employees facilitating fraud or embezzlement can be prosecuted.
Money Laundering Recognition: Both individuals and networks transferring illicit funds are liable.
Cybercrime Integration: Digital and cyber-enabled financial crimes are prosecuted under ICT Act in conjunction with Penal Code provisions.
Forensic and Investigative Support: Courts increasingly rely on banking records, electronic data, and expert testimony to establish liability.
RELATED Blog
0 comments