Bangladesh’s one of the most controversial business magnates Mohammed Saiful Alam – widely known as S Alam – has taken his fight with the state to the global stage, filing an international arbitration claim accusing the interim government of wrecking his multibillion-dollar empire through a “targeted campaign of confiscation and value destruction.”
Lawyers representing Saiful Alam – founder and chairman of S Alam Group – lodged the case on Monday with the World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) in Washington, seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation, according to Financial Times report.
The move marks the first international legal challenge against the Muhammad Yunus-led interim government, which has launched sweeping efforts to recover assets allegedly siphoned overseas during Sheikh Hasina’s 15-year rule.
Speaking to TIMES of Bangladesh about the implications of the arbitration, Barrister Rizwan Siddiquie said the World Bank would issue a formal notice to Bangladesh in connection with the proceedings, followed by a hearing and a subsequent arbitral award.
However, he noted that the process would not disrupt Bangladesh’s ongoing asset-recovery efforts, as most of the alleged money-laundering incidents were committed when the individuals involved were Bangladeshi citizens.
The damages claimed by S Alam, according to Barrister Siddiquie, fall under “special” or “consequential” losses, which are generally not compensable under international arbitration standards. Therefore, he believes Bangladesh will not be legally obliged to pay compensation.
Bangladesh Bank Governor Ahsan H Mansur has publicly estimated that S Alam and his associates diverted up to $10 billion abroad through loans, fake imports and forced takeovers of banks. Mansur told the media that investigators had uncovered extensive evidence of cross-border transfers through institutions controlled by the conglomerate.
The Yunus government’s December White Paper claimed that as much as $234 billion had been drained out of the country under the previous administration – an amount equivalent to two-thirds of Bangladesh’s GDP.
According to the paper, Alam’s group was cited among the largest alleged beneficiaries of what regulators described as a “systemic bank capture.” The revelations intensified scrutiny of S Alam Group’s vast financial network and widened the standoff between the authorities and the family’s business empire.
In its ICSID filing, the S Alam family alleges that Dhaka’s actions violated protections guaranteed under the 2004 bilateral investment treaty between Bangladesh and Singapore, where the family relocated and obtained citizenship between 2021 and 2023.
According to international media, the family renounced their Bangladeshi nationality in 2020, a move that enables them to invoke treaty rights as Singaporean citizens. Their London-based law firm, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, says the government froze dozens of accounts, seized assets and “co-ordinated an incendiary media campaign,” leading to “very substantial damages, estimated in the hundreds of millions.”
These claims, if upheld, could turn the government’s anti-corruption drive into a costly international dispute, pitting its domestic reforms against treaty obligations abroad.
The effects of the government’s actions are already visible within the country. Court records show that more than Tk8,000 crore worth of shares across 105 companies linked to S Alam have been frozen, while the Bangladesh Bank has engaged three of the Big Four – EY, Deloitte and KPMG – to conduct asset-quality reviews of banks allegedly stripped under the previous regime.
In a letter to Governor Mansur on 18 December 2024, the S Alam family said Mansur’s statements were “deliberately false and defamatory” and warned that the group was prepared to commence international legal proceedings in defence of their investments.
The letter from Quinn Emanuel, S Alam’s law firm, stated that the family’s rights under the Bangladesh–Singapore bilateral treaty “have been violated and continue to be violated… and give rise to the present dispute.” The lawyers argued that Bangladesh’s actions amounted to unlawful expropriation and denial of fair and equitable treatment under the treaty.
Ten months after sending the letter, the family moved to file the international arbitration case.
The arbitration now looms as a major test for the Yunus government’s reform drive, which has already unsettled powerful conglomerates and banking interests. Under the bilateral investment treaty with Singapore, investors are required to issue a notice of dispute and allow six months for amicable settlement before initiating formal arbitration – a window that could create scope for negotiation or financial compromise.
History shows that investor–state arbitrations can have far-reaching consequences. At ICSID, tribunals have previously ordered states to pay massive sums for expropriation and unfair treatment – such as the $6 billion award against Pakistan in the Reko Diq mining case, and the $469 million award against Venezuela to Smurfit Westrock.
Even smaller awards, often between $10 million and $100 million, have forced governments to settle or adjust economic policies. A ruling against Bangladesh could affect its ongoing campaign to recover laundered funds, prompting a review of current strategies and enforcement procedures.
To understand Bangladesh’s official position, TIMES of Bangladesh attempted to reach Mansur, the Bangladesh Bank governor and chair of the Task Force on Stolen Asset Recovery, but he could not be reached for comment.
However, Mohammad Shahriar Siddiqui, acting spokesperson for the central bank, told TIMES, “The matter will be handled by the government. The Bangladesh Bank will fully co-operate with the government.” He added, “We have not yet received any documents related to this arbitration. Once they reach us, the next steps will be taken in consultation with legal advisers.”
