On April 29, 2007, the Anti-Corruption Commission brought a formal case against Dr. Alamgir, charging that in his wealth statement he "concealed" six fixed-deposit accounts valued at Tk 11.7 million (approx. US$ 167,000). The ACC insists that the concealment was deliberate and indicates corruption. The case is pending trial at the Third Court (a special speedy tribunal), expected to be heard on May 21.

As a news report summarizes it: "ACC deputy directors Sharmin Ferdousi and Jibon Krishna Roy, investigation officers of the case against Alamgir, submitted the charge sheet, saying Alamgir committed a crime by not disclosing his accurate financial information to the National Board of Revenue (NBR) and the ACC. Alamgir also did not mention that Tk 1.17 crore [11.7 million] was kept as fixed deposit with Karwan Bazar branch of the IFIC Bank, they said" (The Daily Star, 9 May 2007).

Here are reasons why these charges would not hold ground in a regularly constitued court of law:

1. Statement was produced under duress

First of all, Dr. Alamgir prepared his financial statement under duress. He was asked to prepare and submit a wealth statement while in jail within 72 hours, or risk the seizure of his property. He had to prepare the statement with no access to any of his documents. He had to provide information, including 40+ years of income and assets, entirely from his memory. These conditions will naturally generate inconsistencies, since it is not humanly possible to give an accurate account of one's lifetime's income and wealth under these circumstances.

2. Such a discrepancy does not indicate mischief

From a letter Dr. Alamgir sent to his lawyer: "Statement of assets as made in the jail may not exactly tally with statement of wealth as given to IT (Income Tax) authority; statement made in jail was a product of memory drawn in a half-hour or so in front of intelligence personnel. If it approximates and gives a reasonable picture of assets it should be regarded as bonafide and not attractive of mischief of ACC's law."

Furthermore, the value of fixed deposit accounts (these are comparable to fixed-term Certificates of Deposit or CDs in the United States, except that they are receivable against the government) is calculated at maturity. From a letter by Dr. Alamgir: "Till expiry and encashment, income from FDRs are just receivables or accruals and not actual income. if there was any discrepancy in income tax statement etc. and the asset statement given to ACC, this may be partly owing to this."

3. There was no intentional concealment because FDR accounts, in fact, were mentioned

In fact, Dr. Alamgir mentioned fixed deposit (FDR) accounts. On page 3-5 of the statement furnished to ACC (Anti-Corruption Commision), specific mention was made about Sanchaya Patras and Amanat Patras (Bengali words for savings certificates and fixed deposit instruments). While in jail and without any bank documents, he estimated the value of his accounts to be around Tk. 9 million. 

4. There was no intentional concealment because taxes have been paid from these accounts

Corruption implies illegal income through theft or abuse of power. The accounts that the government are referring to have been in place for many years. This is regular banking information (not illegal accounts or offshore accounts or hidden accounts) that is readily available to the government. In addition, taxes have been paid from these accounts at each renewal; there was nothing hidden or illegal about them.

5. There is no evidence of wealth disproportionate to income

Dr. Alamgir has given the government estimates of his income and savings from his salary, extra-salary income (such as inheritance and house rent), and investments -- all of which were transparent through payment of regular income taxes. His income over his lifetime more than justifies his having the amount in the accounts the government has mentioned.

In addition, the government has not uncovered evidence of conspicuous consumption or stolen materials that might indicate corruption.

6. The case shows a political motive

Dr. Alamgir was not even part of the government the past 6 years, on the basis of which he could have allegedly abused government power. The fact that this was among the first cases filed instead of those who are commonly known to be corrupt and who have become visibly wealthy in a short time betrays a political motive behind the case.

Finally, given that Dr. Alamgir had to write his wealth statement from memory and without access to documents, he wrote a cover letter with the statement, requesting the government to contact him should any discrepancy appear so that he can provide clarification. The fact that they never contacted him and rushed to charge him with corruption shows a malicious intent to convict.

Since these charges are flimsy, the government is proceeding to hold the trials in a summary tribunal constitued with new laws and with fundamental rights suspended. Please urge the government to restore fundamental rights and due process, such that if there is a real case against Dr. Alamgir, it is held in a fair, open, public trial according to standards guaranteed in the Constitution of Bangladesh and other human rights treaties that Bangladesh has signed.