ANATOMY OF THE EXTORTION CASE AGAINST SHEIKH HASINA

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 DHAKA 001234

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/30/2017
TAGS: PHUM PGOV KGOV KDEM BG
SUBJECT: ANATOMY OF THE EXTORTION CASE AGAINST SHEIKH HASINA

REF: DHAKA 1161

Classified By: Charge d'Affaires a.i. Geeta Pasi; reasons 1.4(d)


1. (C) SUMMARY. On July 16, Awami League leader and former
Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina was detained by police and
brought before a Dhaka magistrate, where she was accused of
abetment in an extortion case. Authorities provided the
Embassy with copies of evidence, including the confession of
Sheikh Hasina,s cousin, Sheikh Fazlul Karim Selim, copies of
checks and other bank documents. Lawyers familiar with the
case believe there was sufficient evidence presented in the
charge sheet to prosecute the case. END SUMMARY.

AN ARREST DONE BY THE BOOK
==========================


2. (SBU) Awami League president and former Prime Minister
(1996-2001) Sheikh Hasina Wazed was arrested by police at her
residence in Dhaka in the early morning of July 16. She was
brought before a Dhaka city magistrate later that morning.
The court confirmed that the charges against Hasina were in
order and that her detention was in accordance with the law.
It was also announced that the Anti-Corruption Commission
(ACC) will prosecute the case on behalf of the government.


3. (SBU) Hasina's son Sajeeb Wazed "Joy" has alleged
authorities acted illegally in arresting Hasina without a
warrant. According to the Bangladesh Code of Criminal
Procedure, however, a person can be arrested without warrant
for a "cognizable" (serious) offense, which would include the
charge against Hasina of abetting extortion. When such cases
occur, the arresting officer must present the arrestee before
a magistrate having jurisdiction of the case within 24 hours.
The judge must then recognize the case as cognizable and
verify the arrest order, which is what happened in this case.
Authorities presented Hasina immediately before a
magistrate, thus complying with the Code's provisions.

SPECIAL EMERGENCY POWERS RULES
==============================


5. (SBU) The government brought the case against Hasina under
the Special Emergency Powers Rules of 2007. These rules,
enacted by the government after the declaration of a state of
emergency, suspend the right to bail in cases involving
serious criminal charges. The court must dispose of cases
filed under this rule within 45 days of the framing of
charges, with a 15-day extension possible if required.


6. (SBU) On July 29, Hasina's attorneys filed a writ petition
with the High Court challenging the government's decision to
charge her under the Special Emergency Powers Rules. Counsel
claim the decision was arbitrary and unconstitutional. The
High Court has agreed to accept the writ petition and rule on
it. (NOTE: The petition does not challenge the actual
extortion case, only the handling of it under the special
rules, since this denies her the right to bail.)

ANATOMY OF AN EXTORTION CASE
============================


7. (SBU) On June 13, Azam Chowdhury, managing director of
Eastcoast Trading Private Ltd., filed a first incident report
(FIR) against Hasina and her cousin, Awami League Presidium
member and former Health Minister Sheikh Fazlul Karim Selim.
He accused them of extorting 29 million taka (approximately
$430,000) from him in 2000 and 2001 (Reftel).


8. (SBU) Selim was arrested on May 28. On June 21, he made a
confessional statement in open court. According to Selim's
statement, a copy of which was provided to the Embassy, Selim
admitted to receiving the 29 million taka from Eastcoast on
behalf of its client, the Russian company Techno Prom Export
(TPE),which was building a $27 million power plant in
Narayanganj. Selim told Hasina, who was then Prime Minister
and Minister for Power, Energy and Natural Resources, that he
was acting as a "consultant" on the project, and informed her
of the "commission." She agreed to have the block on the
power project removed. According to Selim, Hasina asked him
to give to her sister Sheikh Rehana the ten million taka
($145,000) he had set aside for her.


9. (SBU) The prosecution formally filed its charge sheet
against Hasina, Selim, and Rehana on July 24. Rehana,

DHAKA 00001234 002 OF 003


currently resident in London, is not in police custody. The
prosecution included names of 24 witnesses and an extensive
list evidence including records of the power project, bank
checks made out to cash, bank deposit slips into Selim,s
accounts corresponding exactly to the amounts of the cash
checks, and official visitors logs from the official Prime
Minister,s Residence showing Selim,s and Rehana,s visits
to Hasina during the period the transactions took place.
(NOTE: When she was arrested, Hasina denied Rehana was in
Bangladesh during this timeframe.)


10. (SBU) When the charge sheet was filed, the judge set the
date of August 15 for a hearing to accept the charge sheet
and schedule a hearing to "frame the charges" -- which will
start the criminal trial. This was subsequently rescheduled
for August 16 so as not to coincide with the August 15
anniversary of the assassination of Hasina,s father, former
President Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, and the killing of most of
her family in the 1975 coup.


11. (C) On July 25, police detained Hafez Ahmed "Khoka," a
businessman with close ties to Hasina and Selim. Khoka was
the man who signed the checks on Selim's behalf. Khoka was
presented before a magistrate on July 29 and submitted a
confessional statement in which he admitted his role in the
deal and corroborated Selim's confessional statement. An ACC
prosecutor told us they are confident he will make a strong
prosecution witness.

PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE PERSPECTIVES ON THE CASE
============================================= ===


12. (C) Prosecutors have told us they believe they can get a
conviction against Hasina under Section 385 of the Bangladesh
Penal Code, abetting extortion. The term of imprisonment is
five to 14 years. According to the Code, this charge must
involve either intent or dishonest inducement. According to
the prosecution, Selim,s inducement created fear in
Chowdhury that he would lose his business if he did not pay.
Hasina was not involved in inducing the fear, but is accused
of having known, approved of, and supported it.


13. (C) The prosecution will argue Hasina knew about the
inducement and sanctioned it (since Selim told her and she
permitted him to stay on as a Minister). Furthermore, at the
time Hasina held the Power Ministry portfolio, and as such
had the power to restart the power project in question.


14. (SBU) The prosecution says it can prove through bank and
government records that the reactivation of the power project
by Hasina coincided with the checks deposited into Selim,s
accounts. Lastly, the prosecution will argue Hasina,s
permitting Selim to remain Health Minister after admitting to
her he was acting as "consultant" and getting fees from this
project constituted tolerance and abetting of graft.


15. (C) Shortly after the initial FIR was filed on June 13,
Hasina told the press that the money in question in this case
was a contribution to the party, "something done all over the
world." Her defense is expected to argue, however, that
Hasina knew nothing about the matter since Selim handled it.
(NOTE: This is Joy's main argument against the arrest.) The
defense is also expected to claim Selim's confessional
statement was obtained under duress.

MEANWHILE, ANOTHER CASE PERCOLATES
==================================


16. (SBU) In another development on July 29, a Dhaka
metropolitan magistrate ordered Hasina to be brought to court
to be arrested on another case under investigation. This
case was brought by former Hasina loyalist and Dhaka
businessman Noor Ali (reftel). Ali filed a FIR against
Hasina claiming he was forced to pay Hasina and another of
her cousins, Sheikh Helal, over 50 million taka ($725,000)
and hand over ownership of two apartments to Helal's wife in
1998 to resolve a dispute between the government and his
company, which was building a 110-megawatt barge-mounted
power plant at the time.

COMMENT: COURT OF LAW V. COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION...
============================================= ======


17. (C) If the charges are to be believed, this case clearly
lays out how corruption takes place within the Bangladeshi

DHAKA 00001234 003 OF 003


government. That this involved a power project should make
this case all the more incendiary, given the country's
current power generation deficit. Contrary to Joy's
allegations, the prosecution appears to have enough evidence
to pursue charges against Hasina, and they are confident they
can prove their case in court beyond the required reasonable
doubt. The problem is whether the government can
successfully argue the case in the court of public opinion,
convincing the people this case has merit and is not just a
political reckoning for Hasina.
PASI