The criminal verdict against Professor Mohammed Yunus and three other top officials of Grameen Telecom was reached through a judicial process aligned with Articles 27 and 28(1) of the constitution, ensuring that ‘all citizens are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection of the law,’ and relevant statutes such as the Labor Act 2006. The Bangladeshi government passed the Labour Act 2006 to support the ILO Declaration and the Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work as a significant step in putting ILO standards into practice. As stated in Article 22, the constitutional requirements emphasize the division of the judiciary and executive branches, allowing the judicial system to function independently regardless of the criminal offender’s background, be it a Nobel Laureate or an ordinary person. The activities of Professor Yunus and his organizations undermine the content and spirit of the Labor Act 2006 and the ILO declaration. The international accolades of Dr. Yunus and the criminal trial have nothing to do with the intervention of the Bangladesh government, which appreciates his achievements in the global forum and relies entirely on Bangladesh’s independent judicial system regarding the legal procedure.
Involvement of Professor Yunus in the Judicial Process:
The authentic information about Professor Yunus’s three steps of criminal involvement deserves international attention and global coverage to uncover the facets of the nature and types of criminal allegations against him. A detailed description is necessary to clarify the allegation.
Cases filed by the DIFE:
The origin of the lawsuits against Grameen Telecom from legal documents shows that the workers of Grameen Telecom filed complaints under the Labor Act 2006 with the Department of Inspection for Factories and Establishments (DIFE) seeking redressal as they were deprived of their rights. The DIFE, a statutory agency, is in charge of upholding the Labor Act of 2006 on behalf of the nation. The DIFE-appointed factory inspector completed the investigation in light of the complaint. The investigation confirmed the allegations, and the DIFE served a legal show cause notice to Grameen Telecom. To follow up on the notice, Grameen Telecom acknowledged its lack and noted its legal obligations.
Nonetheless, The DIFE has repeatedly warned Grameen Telecom of the legal resolution of these issues related to workers’ rights. Since Grameen Telecom did not take the initiative to resolve the problems related to workers’ rights, the DIFE filed cases in the Labor Court. After various inspections in different time spans from 2019 to 2021, the DIFE filed seven cases against Grameen Telecom in the labor court. (Reference List: Case by DIFE).
In these cases, Dr. Yunus is involved directly in two instances with other officials, and the rest of the other five issue charges against other top officials. In a criminal case, BLA-01/2020, Dr. Yunus and the other three accomplices of Grameen Telecom confessed their crime, and the court fined BDT 7500 each. In another criminal case, BLA 228/2021, filed by labor inspector SM Arifuzzaman, the third labor court of Dhaka sentenced four people, including Dr. Yunus, to six months imprisonment on January 1, 2024. At the same time, the court also fined BDT 30,000 each. The other three sentences are against Grameen Telecom’s former managing director (MD), Ashraful Hasan, director Noor Jahan Begum, and Md. Shah Jahan. After announcing the verdict, on the condition of an appeal to the higher court, the labor court granted one-month interim bail to all four, including Professor Yunus.
Dr. Yunus, the chairman of Grameen Telecom, appealed against the ruling, denying that the company had broken the law regarding the Labor Act. Professor Yunus is now on bail as part of the judicial procedure at the Labor Appeal Tribunal. The court completed the trial following due process and rendered a correct verdict.
The Labor Court is a separate court that handles any case expeditiously. Dr. Yunus has been notified first for depriving the workers of their rights. The DIFE filed a lawsuit against him for not complying with the demands mentioned in the notice. On September 9, 2021, SM Arifuzzaman, Labor Inspector of the DIFE, filed the lawsuit in the Third Labor Court of Dhaka. Later, Dr. Yunus challenged the case proceedings against him in the High Court and Appellate Divisions of the Supreme Court. After both courts dismissed his petition, the concerned Labor Court conducted the trial proceedings against him based on evidence and documents. According to the case documents, DIFE officials visited Grameen Telecom’s office in Mirpur, Dhaka, on August 16, 2021, and found several violations of labor laws. On August 19 of that year, the DIFE sent a letter to the Grameen Telecom Authority saying that the company was supposed to make 67 employees permanent, but it still needed to be done. Besides, the employee participation and welfare fund is yet to be constituted, and even five percent of the company’s dividend, which was supposed to be paid to the workers, has not been paid.
Cases filed by the workers:
Apart from these lawsuits by DIFE, aggrieved workers of Grameen Telecom filed 264 cases against the company’s top management, including Professor Mohammad Yunus, under the Labor Act 2006 from 2017 to 2023. The court documents show that around 264 workers have been fighting for their labor law rights by filing 264 cases under the Labor Act 2006 from 2017 to 2023 against Grameen Telecom (Reference List: Case by Worker). The document states that workers have filed three significant types of cases against Dr. Yunus and other Grameen Telecom, Grameen Communication, and Grameen Kalyan authorities. Among them, 180 workers filed 180 lawsuits against Grameen Telecom, Grameen Communication, and Grameen Kalyan with the complaints of non-deposit of a particular dividend portion to the participation fund, welfare fund, and employee welfare foundation and non-permanent employment of workers (Section 234, Section 4, and Section 132 of Labor Law 2006). Other 82 workers filed cases complaining only about the non-deposit of a particular dividend portion to the participation fund, welfare fund, and employee welfare foundation (Section 234). Two plaintiffs submitted two case applications to the Labour Court under Section 213 of the said Act for the enforcement of Section 132 (Claim arising out of deduction from wages or delayed payment of wages) of the Labour Act, 2006. Out of 264 cases, the organization’s employees and workers filed two against the Grameen Agriculture Foundation, which are still pending in the Hon’ble Labour Court, Rangpur. The remaining 262 cases filed by the workers and employees of those companies against Grameen Telecom, Grameen Communication, and Grameen Kalyan are under the Hon’ble Third Labour Court, Dhaka. Out of all these cases, 25 have been settled following negotiations between Grameen Telecoms authorities and employees on February 25, 2024. The remaining 239 lawsuits filed by employees are still in trial stages in the courts.
The courts got complaints from Grameen Telecom employees outlining the following irregularities:
ï‚·Non-deposit of a particular dividend portion to the participation fund, welfare fund, and employee welfare foundation.
ï‚·Non-permanent employment of workers.
ï‚·Non-monetization of public holidays.
As per sub-sections 7 and 8 of Section 4 of the Labor Act 2006, a worker must make employment permanent after the apprenticeship period. Section 234 of the Labor Act of 2006 provides a provision for establishing a Labor Participation Fund and a Labor Welfare Fund. According to the provisions of this section, every company owner must deposit 5 (five) percent of the previous year’s net profit at the end of the year in the ratio of 80:10:10 to the participation fund, welfare fund, and labor welfare foundation, respectively.
Case filed by the ACC:
Grameen Telecom has already bribed and forced many plaintiffs to abolish their cases against the organization. Illegal transactions, bribes, and money laundering by Grameen Telecom become clear through proper examination of the bank account transactions and money laundering documents, which originated a third type of lawsuit by the independent Anti-Corruption Commission of Bangladesh.
According to the independent judicial process, labor courts conduct workers’ lawsuits. Surprisingly, Grameen Telecom and its top management have resorted to an illegal way to stop these legal actions against aggrieved workers. The Independent and autonomous Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) has found illegal and suspicious transactions involving the enormous amount of money supposedly to be paid to bribe the CBA leaders and different levels of management of the organization.
Therefore, the ACC has approved the charge sheet against 14 persons, including the Chairman of Grameen Telecom, Dr. Muhammad Yunus, for embezzlement of about BDT 25 crore and 22 lakhs from the Grameen Telecom worker’s welfare fund. On May 30, last year, ACC Deputy Director Gulshan Anwar filed the case as the main plaintiff in the Dhaka Integrated District Office.
The accused are Professor Dr. Muhammad Yunus, Managing Director of Grameen Telecom Nazmul Islam; the director and former managing director Ashraful Hasan; Director Parveen Mahmud; Nazneen Sultana; Md. Shahjahan; Nurjahan Begum; SM Huzzatul Islam Latifi; lawyer Md. Yusuf Ali and Zafrul Hasan Sharif; the presidents of the Grameen Telecom Sramik-Karmachari Union Kamruzzaman; general secretary Feroz Mahmud Hasan; representative of the union Mainul Islam; and office secretary Md. Kamrul Hasan.
In the presence of the chairman of Grameen Telecom, Professor Dr. Muhammad Yunus, managing director Md. Nazmul Islam, and other board members, according to the decision of the 108th board of Grameen Telecom, on May 9, 2022, the company opened an account at the Gulshan branch of Dhaka Bank. On April 27, Grameen Telecom Sramik Union and Grameen Telecom signed a settlement agreement to distribute dividends to the employees.
The Grameen Telecom authority opened the bank account a day before Grameen Telecom’s board meeting decided to open that account. Although the settlement agreement was in April, the deal shows the bank account opened on May 8, which is impossible.
According to the decision of that board meeting, Tk 437 crore, 1 lakh, 12 thousand, and 621 were transferred from the United Commercial Bank Mirpur branch of Grameen Telecom to the Dhaka Bank Gulshan branch of Grameen Telecom on May 10. Later, as per the decision of Grameen Telecom’s 109th board meeting on June 22, an additional amount of Tk 1 crore, 63 lakh, 91 thousand, and 389 was approved.
A total of 26 crores, 22 lakhs, 6 thousand 780 takas, including one crore 63 lakhs, 91 thousand 389 takas on May 17, 14 crores, 58 lakhs, 15 thousand 391 takas on May 25, and 14 crores, 58 lakhs, 15 thousand 391 takas, were transferred from the account of the Dhaka Bank Gulshan branch to the account of the Dutch-Bangla Bank local branch of Grameen Telecom Employees Union.
But before the distribution of dividends to the employees, Tk 2 crore and 50 lakhs were transferred to CBA leader Kamruzzaman’s Dutch-Bangla Bank Mirpur branch account on May 25 and Tk 50 lakh on June 2 without informing them of their due amount. Tk 2 crore was transferred to the Dutch-Bangla Bank Mirpur branch account of Grameen Telecom CBA leader Mainul Islam on May 26 and Tk 1 crore on June 2. Tk 2 crore and 50 lakh were transferred to the Dutch-Bangla Bank Mirpur branch account of Grameen Telecom’s CBA leader, Feroz Mahmud Hasan, on May 26 and Tk 50 lakh on June 2.
Taka 4 crore was transferred to Lawyer Md. Yusuf Ali’s Commercial Bank of Ceylon Dhanmondi branch account, and Taka 5 crore was transferred to the City Bank Gulshan branch account. According to the ACC allegation, Taka 6 crore was transferred to the joint account of Lawyer Md. Yusuf Ali and Zafarul Hasan Sharif in the Gulshan North branch of Standard Chartered Bank on May 29, which was not due to them.
The ACC complaint also states that trade union leader Kamrul Islam, as an intermediary, took Tk 50 lakh as a bribe through a check on May 29 in a Dutch-Bangla Bank account. The remaining 72 thousand taka transferred for embezzlement are frozen in the Dutch-Bangla bank.
According to the ACC, the advocate fee transaction was only Tk 1 crore. The chairman, managing director, board members, CBA leaders, and lawyers of Grameen Telecom have embezzled the remaining 25 crores, 22 lakhs, and 6 thousand 780 takas by transferring money from Grameen Telecom under the guise of forgery for dishonest purposes.
In this situation, the ACC has approved the charge sheet against 14 persons, including Professor Dr. Muhammad Yunus, Chairman of Grameen Telecom, under sections 4(2) and 4(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2012 and sections 409, 420, 467, 468, and 471,109 of the Penal Code, accusing fake settlement, bribery, embezzlement, fraudulent activity, and money laundering.
{{ Grameen Telecom has transferred Tk 437 crore, 1 lakh, and 12 thousand 621 to pay the dividend to the employees at a rate of 5%. But from here, Grameen Telecom used 6% (6% * 437,01,12,621 = 26,22,60757), totaling twenty six crore, 22 lakh, 60 thousand, and 757 as advocate fees and other fees. But Grameen Telecom actually paid only Tk 1 crore as advocate fees. The remaining 25 crore, 22 lakh, 6 thousand, and 780 rupees were given to the CBA and the people involved in the misdeeds. The remaining TK. 72,678 is frozen in the bank. We have found four reasons for this settlement:
1.To create an environment in which the CBA and the advocates can mediate the withdrawal of all the cases of the workers.
2.The workers’ complaint (which they gave to the ILO and later came to the investigation of DIF) was that after the establishment of the company, 2,977 crore taka was embezzled from the Grameen Telecom Company by transferring it to the bank accounts of various affiliates for the purpose of money laundering. Grameen Telecom has asked the workers to withdraw the complaint. The money was given to the sister concerns of Grameen Telecom, who bought shares of Grameen Telecom in 1996–1998. For example, Grameen Kalyan has spent Tk 53 crore, 25 lakh, and 63 thousand at that time, has taken 42.65% of the shares, and has so far taken out two thousand crore Taka as a dividend. But the 53 crore, 25 lakh, and 63 thousand taka have continued a system of continuous withdrawal of money without ever showing it as a loan. It’s a kind of money laundering.
3.Grameen Telecom embezzled 45 crore, 52 lakh, 13 thousand, and 643 taka, along with the interest allocated to the Shramik Karmachari Kalyan Foundation. It is 10% of the total dividend of 5%. However, they paid Tk 45 crore, 52 lakh, and 13 thousand 643 with interest to the Workers Welfare Fund (10% of the total dividend). The Workers’ Welfare Foundation and the Workers’ Welfare Fund are different things. The law provides for 5% to 10% of the dividend in each sector.
4.And Grameen Telecom has paid 5% of the dividend since 2010. The labor law was passed in 2006. CBA leaders and lawyers have managed to ignore this four-year gap. Grameen Telecom paid huge bribes to CBA leaders and lawayers to cover up these misdeeds and silence all the employees. 6% of the dividend has been used illegally for bribes, in which the fair rights of workers have been taken away.
Even after this transaction, workers filed cases in the labor court due to the deal being negotiated with unauthorized representatives. This resulted in a significant gap between the total amount demanded and the settled amount. To potentially address this gap, Grameenphone allegedly offered incentives to CBA leaders and lawyers totaling BDT 25 crore 22 lakhs. Additionally, since 1996, Grameen Telecom has allegedly conducted suspicious transactions totaling BDT 2977 crore to other subsidiary and sister organizations. Furthermore, under the Labor Act of 2006, Grameen Telecom was obligated to pay 5% of its profits to workers starting in 2006. However, they allegedly did not begin these payments until 2010. Therefore, the deal and transactions raise concerns about transparency and adherence to labor laws..))
Chronology of three types of offenses by Dr. Yunus:
The chronology of the three types of cases, such as those filed by workers, those filed by the DIFE, and those filed by the ACC, is something to notice here. Contrary to the claim, at first, the workers of Grameen Bank started taking legal action in 2017 by filing a total of 51 cases out of a total of 264 cases within 2023. The DIFE filed seven cases between 2019 and 2020. Therefore, it’s clear that workers filed cases at least two years before the DIFE resorted to legal action. The 264 plaintiffs filed lawsuits with the Labour Court under Section 213 for applying Sections 4, 132, and 234 of the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006. Accusing fake settlements, bribery, embezzlement, fraudulent activity, and money laundering, the ACC filed its only case in 2023.
Background of DIFE and ACC Involvement:
Since Dr. Yunus has been trying to establish that the government is actively involved in the legal procedure against Grameen Telecom, we need to clarify the process of the DIFE and ACC here. According to the ILO (International Labor Organization) Convention No. 81 on Labor Policy and Labor Inspection of 1969, Bangladesh formed an independent inspectorate named the Factory and Establishment Inspection Inspectorate in 1970. Later, when its scope increased, it became a directorate.
The Department of Inspection of Factories and Establishments (DIFE), a statutory body under Labor Law 2006, works independently with employers, workers, the government, and international organizations to maintain order in the labor field, including implementing workers’ welfare, occupational health, and safety measures in the workplace according to the Labor Act 2006.
On the other hand, according to the Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2004, the ACC functions independently. Typically, when the ACC files a complaint against a person or organization, the ACC appoints an investigating officer to look into the complaint. If the investigation found the allegations true, ACC filed a case in the appropriate court. The government has no role in this case.
Similarly, an inquiry officer investigates employee complaints against businesses or factory owners with the Directorate of Inspection of Factories and Establishments. If the investigation finds the truth of the complaint, the DIFE will start a lawsuit in the Labor Court as per the Labor Act 2006. Therefore, the government cannot intervene or play a role in these cases.
Governmental cases, or cases filed by the government, have different definitions and modes of action in Bangladesh. According to Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, if anyone complains to the officer-in-charge of the police station in any criminal matter and if the complaint is found to be confirmed after the investigation, the cases filed by the officer-in-charge of the police station are considered government plaintiffs or government cases. In cases of government plaintiffs or government cases, the prosecution on behalf of the government is in charge: the public prosecutor, attorney general, and solicitor wings of the Ministry of Law, Justice, and Parliamentary Affairs.
Conclusion:
In the ongoing case against Grameen Telecom in the Labor Court, the Public Prosecutor, Attorney General/Assistant Attorney General, did not participate on the government’s behalf. The Solicitor Wing of the Ministry of Law, Justice, and Parliamentary Affairs has no involvement. Therefore, there is no legal basis to call the said case a government case. The DIFE filed these seven lawsuits against Grameen Telecom; the other 264 cases are workers vs. owner litigation.
Considering the discussion mentioned above, the judiciary of Bangladesh works independently without any intervention from the government. It’s essential to remember that the law does not acknowledge the weight of the offender; instead, it is more inclined to establish the fundamental labor rights of Bangladesh and combat any fraudulent or criminal activity to uphold the rule of law.
