& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Sonali Bank scam and finance minister

Md. Ataur Rahman
The Boards of Directors of the state-owned banks should be reconstituted immediately and the politically appointed directors, who have no banking experience at all, must be dropped from the Boards in the interest of the banks.***
ON August 28, when journalists asked Finance Minister Abul Mal Abdul Muhith whether the Board of Directors of Sonali Bank would be dissolved due to Hall-Mark loan scam at Sonali Bank Ruposhi Bangla Hotel branch, as recommended by Bangladesh Bank, he became furious and said Bangladesh Bank had no authority in this regard. The finance minister questioned the authority of the central bank by this comment.
Renowned senior bankers of the country were surprised at the comment of the finance minister. This comment damaged the status of the central bank, while the involved persons in Hall-Mark loan scam were encouraged. What Bangladesh Bank can do or cannot do is clearly mentioned in the Bank Company Act, 1991.
As per Section 46(6) of the Bank Company Act, the governor of Bangladesh Bank Dr. Atiur Rahman wrote a letter to the finance minister on August 27 requesting him to reconstitute the Board of Directors of Sonali Bank after dissolving the present Board of Directors, since the existing Board could not disown the gross irregularities committed by Sonali Bank Ruposhi Bangla Hotel branch in disbursing loan to the tune of Tk. 3,547 crore to Hall-Mark Group and other entities without maintaining banking rules. It is unbelievable that such a huge loan was disbursed from time to time beyond the knowledge of the existing Board of Directors.
Dr. Md. Farashuddin, former governor of Bangladesh Bank, said that Bangladesh Bank had taken the correct decision. He said that, as per Sections 45,46 & 47 of Bank Company Act, Bangladesh Bank has the right to take action against any bank, if gross irregularities are committed by them violating banking rules. He further said that Bangladesh Bank lacked proper supervision and monitoring in this regard, but those who misappropriated such a huge amount must be punished under any circumstances.
Dr. Wahiduddin Mahmud, who was a director of Bangladesh Bank, said that Bangladesh Bank had taken the correct decision. Former governor of Bangladesh Bank Dr. Salehuddin Ahmed said that, as a first step, Bangladesh Bank had only recommended dissolution of the present Board of Directors, but if they want they themselves can dissolve the Board of Directors.
Chairman of Bangladesh Krishi Bank and former deputy governor of Bangladesh Bank Khondoker Ibrahim Khaled said that Bangladesh Bank had followed the directives of Bank Company Act. If Bangladesh Bank had not done it, allegations against the Bank would have come up.
That only bank officers were involved in misappropriation of such a big amount is not believable. The Board of Directors cannot disown responsibility in this regard under any circumstances because this huge loan of Tk.3,547 crore could not have been sanctioned and disbursed from time to time without their knowledge. On the other hand, Bangladesh Bank also cannot disown its responsibility. Definitely, there was lack of proper supervision, monitoring and follow-up. Otherwise, it would not have been so easy to misappropriate such a big amount.
In this context, it may be mentioned here that the governor of Bangladesh Bank sent a letter to the finance minister on January4, 2011, regarding overall situation of the state-owned banks and the role of the Board of Directors of the captioned banks. In that letter, the governor recommended reconstitution of the Board of Directors of the state-owned banks, since the directors of the Boards were directly interfering in and influencing the internal affairs of the banks, including trans-fer/posting, promotion of officers/employees and sanctioning of loans.
That letter was also not given any importance at that time, rather, the finance minister arranged a meeting with the Directors of the Boards, where some directors expressed their dissatisfaction regarding the governor's views. In this way, the role of the regulatory body was questioned. But, if the governor's letter was attended to properly at that time, an incident like Hall-Mark scam might not have happened, some senior bank experts think.
In view of what has been stated above, the Boards of Directors of the state-owned banks should be reconstituted immediately and the politically appointed directors, who have no banking experience at all, must be dropped from the Boards in the interest of the banks.