The Appellate Division on Tuesday dismissed the bail plea of Destiny Group Managing Director (MD) Rafiqul Amin and Destiny-2000 Limited chairman Mohammad Hossain. At the same time, the Supreme Court has also directed the judicial court to settle the case quickly.
After hearing, a six-judge appeals bench headed by the chief justice passed the order. ACC lawyer Khurshid Alam Khan confirmed the court order.
Earlier on Sunday, a hearing on the petition was heard. Barrister Ajmalul Hossain QC was in favor of the court where Khurshid Alam Khan was present for the state.
On July 7, 2012, ACC filed two cases against 22 people of Destiny including Rafiqul Amin and Mohammad Hossain with the capital’s Kalabagan Police Station.
The two cases were filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act on charges of smuggling Tk 3,285.25 crore from customers collected in the name of Destiny Multipurpose Co-operative (MLM) and Tree-Plantation Project. Both are currently in jail in this case.
On July 20, 2016, the High Court granted conditional bail to Rafiqul Amin and Mohammad Hossain. Later, the Appellate Division postponed for the ACC petition. At one stage of the hearing, the country’s top court directed to deposit the money. Accordingly, on November 7 of that year, the company was asked to sell the trees and give money.
On the affidavit, the court was informed that they had 34 lakh trees. They can sell each tree for Tk 8000 and pay Tk 2800 crore. Then the Appellate Division ordered the authorities to allow all the accused to sign and negotiate all the papers for sale of trees from jail.
All the work will be under the supervision of Destiny Tree-Plantation CEO Dr Shamsul Haque Bhuiyan MP. If they cannot pay Tk 2800 crore by selling the trees, then they have deposit Tk 2500 crore in cash through the Treasury invoice.
A copy should be sent to the Chairman of the Anti-Corruption Commission. Then, after transferring the money to the affected persons, two officers will be released on bail.
But a few months later, they applied for an amendment to the order. They demanded “the conditions could not be fulfilled because they were imprisoned”. Later on November 30, 2017, the Appellate Division rejected the petition seeking an amendment.