BB heist case: CID fails to produce forensic probe report in 7 years
Highlights:
- Charge sheet submission in the case has been deferred for 67th time
- On 2 Oct, a Dhaka court asked CID to submit the charge sheet by 16 Nov this year
- On 4 Oct, CID once again sought time from court to submit its the charge sheet
The Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of Bangladesh Police, the investigating agency of the Bangladesh Bank reserve heist case, has not been able to complete the forensic investigation of the case in nearly seven years.
Meanwhile, the charge sheet submission in the high-profile case has been deferred as many as 67 times so far.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
Legal documents seen by The Business Standard (TBS) reveal that the agency recently informed the court concerned about the overall progress of the investigation.
The investigating officer of the case, Raihan Uddin Khan, additional special superintendent of police of the Financial Crime and Organised Crime Unit of CID, informed the court about two points as to why the charge sheet has not been readied yet: one, CID sought information from Sri Lanka, China, Japan, and the US regarding the case but has not received any response yet, and two, CID's forensic lab report has not been received yet.
According to the court filing, the CID launched the investigation after the central bank filed the case with Motijheel Police Station on 15 March 2016 under the money laundering prevention act.
Forensic investigation is the gathering and analysis of all crime-related physical evidence in order to come to a conclusion about a suspect.
In the cyber heist case, investigators will look at fingerprints, hard drives, computers, or other technology to establish how a crime took place.
The CID in its court filing also mentioned that all other evidence regarding the case has been collected from the Philippines and most of the investigative work on the Bangladesh side has been completed.
However, the CID's claim of not having the forensic lab report is rather strange as its forensic unit and the financial crime unit are housed at its headquarters in Malibagh, Dhaka.
When asked, Deputy Inspector General Shyamol Kumar Nath, in charge of CID's forensic division, could not clarify why the department has not been able to complete the forensic lab report in nearly seven years.
"I joined the forensic division recently and we are working on it. I cannot speak about things that happened previously," he said.
At a recent press conference, CID chief Mohammad Ali Miah told reporters that the agency has sought information from three or four countries regarding the theft from the Bangladesh Bank foreign reserve.
The CID chief at the time did not mention the forensic lab report issue but said, "The CID is ready to submit the charge sheet in court as soon as it gets access to the information asked for."
On 29 November, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued a government order sanctioning two CID officials – the investigating officer and an additional superintendent of police from the forensic department – to attend court proceedings at the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City in the Philippines.
On 2 October, a Dhaka court asked the CID to submit the probe report of the heist case by 16 November this year.
On 4 October, the CID once again sought time from the court to submit its probe report, saying that the investigating officer, Raihan Uddin Khan, was out of the country.
Unidentified hackers stole $101 million from Bangladesh's central bank account with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, using fake orders on the SWIFT payments system in February 2016.
Of the stolen amount, $81 million was transferred to four accounts with the Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) in Manila, and another $20 million to a bank in Sri Lanka.
However, the $20 million transfer to Sri Lanka failed due to a spelling error by the hackers and the Bangladesh Bank got back that amount from Sri Lanka.
Later, the central bank of Bangladesh was able to retrieve only about another $15 million from the Philippines, realised as a fine from the RCBC for its negligence in duty.
About $66 million could not be recovered yet.
