THE Anti-Corruption Commission鈥檚 recent reports on the seizure of ill-gotten wealth ordered by the court lay bare a stark truth. Bangladesh is tracking corruption and freezing assets on paper. But, almost no laundered money has been repatriated in practice. In 14 months, courts ordered the freezing of Tk 490 crore in assets overseas and Tk 24,826 crore within the country. Yet, beyond a solitary instance of repatriation from Singapore more than a decade ago, no meaningful recovery has materialised. This gap between seizure orders and actual asset recovery speaks volumes about the fragility of the anti-corruption machinery. Court orders may send out signals of accountability, but unless followed by rigorous international engagement and legal follow-through, they remain little more than symbolic gestures. Several ACC officials admit that communications with foreign jurisdictions are sporadic. The problem is not unique to Bangladesh. Global experience shows that stolen asset recovery is a painstaking, time-consuming and expensive process. Offshore financial centres are designed to shield property owners while the corrupt elite bury their wealth under layers of shell companies and nominee structures. Legal battles abroad stretch for years and the accused have the resources to hire the best lawyers to delay, contest and frustrate every attempt at seizure.
But the repatriation of stolen wealth is not impossible. The frameworks already exist. The United Nations Convention against Corruption, bilateral treaties and mutual legal assistance agreements all provide avenues for cooperation. What is missing is not legal cover, but determination, strategy and sustained diplomacy. Asset recovery should be approached as a steady pipeline: identifying strong cases, securing early freezes and pursuing gradual returns. Over time, even modest successes build credibility and deterrence, sending out a powerful message that hiding wealth abroad is neither safe nor permanent. This requires three elements: rigorous preparation of cases, backed by forensic expertise and airtight evidence as vague or poorly substantiated claims collapse quickly in foreign courts; a dedicated legal and diplomatic unit tasked solely with asset recovery, maintaining continuous engagement with host countries rather than one-off requests; and political will at the highest levels, without which even the strongest legal case falters. The recent expos茅s involving influential figures and businesses, from the S Alam and Bashundhara family鈥檚 property in Dubai, Cyprus and the United Kingdom to the hundreds of flats linked to a former Awami League minister, show not only the magnitude of looted wealth but also the complicity of the state apparatus that allowed it.
The commission鈥檚 seizures at home are important in preventing further laundering of money. Yet, unless pursued abroad with equal vigour, the message will remain incomplete. Asset recovery is not just about money. It is about justice, trust in institutions and restoring faith that public office is not a licence to plunder. The government should, therefore, now move beyond rhetoric to resolve.
