Hearing on rule to bring back PK Halder on Jun 12
Published : Tuesday, 17 May, 2022 at 1:46 PM Count : 648
The High Court on Tuesday fixed June 12 as the date to hear a rule issued on bringing back businessman PK Halder to Bangladesh from India.
A bench of justices Nazrul islam Talukder and Kazi Md Ezarul Haque Akunnd passed the order, reports UNB
Deputy attorney general AKM Amin Uddin appeared for the state during the hearing and senior lawyer Khurshid Alam Khan represented the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC).
The High Court also asked the ACC to keep it posted about the latest developments on the investigation in a case filed over money laundered to different countries by Halder.
On May 13, India's Enforcement Directorate (ED) arrested Halder and his two associates in the eastern state of West Bengal. The next day, a court remanded him in ED's custody for three days.
"PK Halder has been posing as an Indian citizen by the name of Shibshankar Halder after having managed to fraudulently obtain various government identities...," the Directorate had said in a statement.
According to the Directorate, the three managed to float companies in India on the basis of the fraudulent documents.
On May 16, the DAG brought the matter to the HC's attention and on Tuesday, the self-initiated rule was taken into the cause list of the court for hearing.
Halder, the former MD of NRB Global Bank, had been on the run since being charged by the ACC for money laundering and amassing ill-gotten wealth.
In cases filed by the ACC, Halder is accused of embezzling and swindling multiple non-banking financial institutions of more than Tk 10,000 crore.
On January 19, 2020, the High Court directed to seize passports and freeze bank accounts of 20 people, including Halder, following a petition by investors.
But before that, on October 23, 2019, Halder managed to cross the border through the Benapole land port, according to the immigration police.
On November 19 , 2020, the High Court wanted to know the steps taken to bring back Halder and arrest him and issued a rule questioning why a direction in this regard should not be given.