The recent approval of the Bank Resolution Ordinance at the national parliament has sparked concerns due to amendments allowing merged banks to revert to previous owners. The primary goal of this ordinance, established during the interim government, was to address fraudulent use of bank assets by owners for personal gain. Measures included appointing administrators, temporary government ownership, creating bridge banks, and transferring assets to protect depositors and financial stability.
In December 2025, five Shariah-based private banks were merged into Sommilito Islami Bank after facing financial distress and failing to repay depositors. Notably, Exim Bank’s chairman, Nazrul Islam Mazumder, was linked to Nassa Group, while other banks were associated with S Alam Group. Sommilito Islami Bank, with a paid-up capital of Tk 35,000 crore, received government contributions of Tk 20,000 crore, with the remaining shares going to depositors. Additionally, the Deposit Insurance Trust Fund provided Tk 12,000 crore, and Bangladesh Bank extended Tk 36,000 crore in loans.
The merged banks had outstanding loans of Tk 196,827 crore, with Tk 165,781 crore classified as non-performing, indicating a significant default rate of 84.23%. Concerns persist regarding loan recovery, deposit reimbursements, and future capital sources. The lack of accountability for those responsible for the distress raises doubts about the merged bank’s success, exacerbated by amendments allowing former owners to regain control.
Critics question the rationale behind returning ownership to individuals who contributed to bank failures. The argument for property rights does not apply as banks manage public deposits and hold significant responsibility. Returning ownership may enable previous wrongdoers to reinvest laundered funds, undermining ongoing efforts to recover illicitly obtained money. Conditions for ownership reinstatement include upfront payments and settling liabilities, but doubts remain about past non-compliance and regulatory effectiveness.
The controversial amendment mirrors past instances of rushed legislative changes benefiting specific parties, undermining transparency and accountability. Concerns persist over the prioritization of vested interests over public welfare and financial stability. The move to return ownership to former bank owners highlights a disturbing trend of accommodating past wrongdoings at the expense of accountability and public trust.