A Dhaka court has issued arrest warrants against five officials of Unilever Bangladesh Limited in connection with a case involving allegations of fraud and breach of trust. Dhaka Metropolitan Magistrate Mehedi Hasan passed the order on Wednesday following a hearing.
The legal action follows a case filed on 7 August 2025, by Masud & Brothers, a distributor for the multinational company.
Zahidul Islam Hiron, lawyer representing the plaintiff, stated that the court had previously directed the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) to investigate the claims. Following the investigation, CID Investigating Officer Tarikul Islam submitted a formal report to the court on 5 January.
The individuals named in the arrest warrants include Syed Zikrul Bin Zamir, who serves as the chief of Central South Cluster, Customer Development; M Shoaib Kamal, the senior territory manager for Wari; and Kawsar Mahmud Chowdhury, area manager for the Central South Region.
The warrants also apply to Mohammad Naharul Islam Molla, the managing director of Consumer Care, and Zinnia Huq, the finance director. Unilever Bangladesh Limited has also been formally listed as an accused entity in the legal proceedings.
What happened?
According to the case statement and subsequent police investigation, Masud & Brothers was appointed as a distributor for Unilever Bangladesh on 3 November 2009.
The agreement covered several areas, including Wari, Maniknagar, Sadarghat, Nawabpur Road, Malibagh, Shyampur, and Motijheel.
The contract was signed by ASM Masudur Rahman, the then managing director of the plaintiff firm, and Mizanur Rashid, who was the customer development director for Unilever at the time.
To facilitate operations, the distributor invested significant capital in renting warehouses, purchasing delivery vehicles, and employing staff.
The firm marketed over 250 products, such as Lux, Dove soap, Sunsilk shampoo, and Fair & Lovely, in designated regions including Chankharpul and Chawkbazar, with the contract most recently renewed on 28 January 2023.
The dispute began after the plaintiff returned damaged and expired goods worth Tk3.75 crore to Unilever between January and June 2025.
Although the contract stipulated that the company must provide replacement products or a refund, the accused officials allegedly used various excuses to delay the process, leading to a breakdown in the business relationship.
The investigation suggests that the accused then adopted “dishonest tactics” to cause further financial harm to the distributor by intentionally increasing the supply of slow-moving products while restricting the supply of high-demand items.
This strategy reportedly reduced the plaintiff’s sales commission and overall market presence.
CID report findings
The CID report revealed that the officials, allegedly seeking illegal benefits for other distributors, imposed unrealistic and inconsistent sales targets on Masud & Brothers. These actions resulted in a loss of approximately Tk1.67 crore for the firm between January 2020 and 2025.
By appointing a new distributor without resolving the Tk3.75 crore debt for damaged goods, the accused are alleged to have embezzled that amount, contributing to a total financial loss of Tk8.53 crore for the plaintiff.
The investigation also noted that the accused had threatened and intimidated the plaintiff, who eventually filed an arbitration case in the High Court.
The investigating officer concluded that there is sufficient evidence against Syed Zikrul Bin Zamir, M Shoaib Kamal, Kawsar Mahmud Chowdhury, Mohammad Naharul Islam Molla, and Zinnia Huq for conspiring to commit criminal breach of trust, fraud, and intimidation.
Unilever denies criminal allegations
In a statement issued Wednesday, Unilever Bangladesh Limited (UBL) said it had learned of the court order through media reports and reaffirmed its commitment to the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary.
The company intends to address the allegations through formal legal channels. UBL maintained that its employees have not engaged in any criminal conduct while performing their professional duties.
The company described the warrants as a procedural element of the legal process and confirmed that they would challenge the order in court at the appropriate time in accordance with the law.
