For every step of ill exercise to gain more money, Nobel laureate Dr. Muhammad Yunus is now gripped into legal procedures in his birth country. True, he claimed himself as the pioneer of ‘social business’ and voiced against amalgamating personal assets, is now badly troubled with multiple court cases involving tax evasion, money laundering, and labor law violations.
The High Court bench of Justice Muhammad Khurshid Alam Sarkar and Justice Sardar Md Rashed Jahangir, on Thursday (7 March), asked the controversial Nobel Awarded figure to pay Tk119cr in income taxes.
You Can Also Read: Dr Yunus: Facts vs Victim Card
The bench announced the verdict directing the Grameen Telecom chairman to pay the amount totaling taxes from 2011 till the next five years. The ruling came after the court settled a case filed by Dr Yunus challenging the tax demanded by the NBR.
On March 3, Dr Yunus, along with seven others accused in a case filed over the embezzlement of around Tk25 crore from dividends reserved for Grameen Telecom workers, was granted bail upon surrender.
In May 2023, the High Court found Dr Yunus guilty of tax evasion and ordered him to pay over Tk12 crore to the NBR, following a hearing on charges of tax evasion from 2011 to 2013.
Dr Yunus had contested the validity of the National Board of Revenue’s notice that demanded around Tk15 crore tax on donations on May 23.
‘Pro-People Economist’ To Tax Fraud: A Deceitful Journey
During the tax years of 2011-2012 and 2013-2014, Dr. Yunus transferred TK 760 million to three of his non-profit trusts – Professor Muhammad Yunus Trust, Yunus Family Trust, and Yunus Centre – in an apparent attempt to evade taxes.
The National Bureau of Revenue (NBR) audited the matter and demanded TK 160 million in accordance with the Gift tax law against these donations as a result of this abnormal decline in tax payment accompanied by a substantial donation.
Dr Yunus claims that the above trusts are for social business and his family members will not be beneficiaries but the NBR investigations suggest otherwise. Dr Yunus and his family controlled the trusts and the trusts’ constitutions included provisions for his family’s sustenance and gave him the sole discretion over how to spend the trusts’ assets. Experts said that Dr Yunus transferred Tk 760 million only to avoid taxes though he denied the claim. After a long legal battle, Dr Yunus had to pay 12.28 crore Taka in taxes following the court order.
![](https://i0.wp.com/pressxpress.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/List-of-trusts-where-Dr.-Yunus-had-transferred-wealth-as-gift-to-evade-tax.jpeg?resize=786%2C272&ssl=1)
From 1997 to 2022, Dr Yunus got engaged in widespread tax evasion by transferring a total of BDT 977 billion to the accounts of Yunus and his affiliated organizations from Grameen Telecom’s operational council. Dr. Yunus donated a sum of Tk 76 crores, 73 lakhs, and 34 thousand to his three trusts. Total tax evaded (As of 2022): Approximately 10 billion Taka.
![](https://i0.wp.com/pressxpress.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Tax-evasion-by-Dr.-Yunus-at-Grameen-Telecom.jpg?resize=696%2C521&ssl=1)
According to the tax documents related to Dr Yunus’s tax evasion cases—
- After 2003, Dr. Yunus concealed 189,434,835 Taka in remittances in his tax file for the 2005-06 tax year. However, his personal South East Bank (Account Number – 0212100020061) shows that he received 1,159,896,224 Taka in remittances during that time. This means that he concealed 189,434,835 Taka in remittance income from the government in his personal tax file, with the intention of evading taxes.
- From the 2005-06 tax year to the 2022-23 tax year, he concealed 189,434,835 Taka in remittance income to evade taxes. Interestingly, in the 2020-21 fiscal year, Dr. Yunus withdrew almost all the money from his personal account to form the ‘Yunus Trust’. Trust funds are exempt from income tax. However, a 15% tax is payable on such funds, which he did not pay. This tax evasion led to a lawsuit against him, which he lost in three courts.
To evade taxes, Dr. Muhammad Yunus concealed large amounts of remittance income in his personal tax file in various tax years.
Earlier, after winning the Nobel Prize in 2006, he mentioned receiving a total remittance of 97 crores 4 lakh 61 thousand 191 BDT in the 2005-06 tax year. However, during that time, he received 115 crores 98 lakh 96 thousand 24 BDT in his personal Southeast Bank account as remittances. This means he concealed information about receiving 18 crores 94 lakh 34 thousand 835 BDT in remittances in his personal tax file.
In addition, Dr. Yunus has been widely accused of evading taxes by forming various shell companies and donating the profits of one company to another. For example, Dr. Yunus transferred 36 billion Taka from the accumulated 5% dividend of Grameen Telecom’s employee welfare fund to another company as a donation.
Blood Sucking Business: Poor Being Victim of Yunus’ Tricky Debt Trap
For many decades, Muhammad Yunus portrayed himself as the ‘savior of the poor’, ‘father of microcredit’ etc but in Bangladesh, millions of poor people are visibly bleeding being trapped in the debt trap of Dr. Yunus’ Grameen Bank as well as multiple microfinance ventures controlled by Yunus.
Yunus projected Jobra village in Chattogram and Sufia Begum as examples of their excellent success stories to the international audience. Through such a campaign, Yunus has attained tremendous international attention and bagged the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006. The name of Sufia, the first borrower of a loan from Yunus’s Grameen Bank, has already crossed the international boundaries of many countries, as Grameen Bank proudly pronounced her name as one of the brilliant success stories of their so-called micro-credit loans but the sad realities are the almost one decade back, Sufia died on January 16, 1997 due to extreme poverty.
![](https://i0.wp.com/pressxpress.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Dr-Yunus-Cases-and-charges.jpeg?resize=736%2C248&ssl=1)
Sufia Begum was a vegetable seller. She took a Tk 60 loan at first from Grameen Bank. At that time, she had to deposit one taka per day. Having paid the loan back Sufia took taka 500 and paid back. Even after that she took another taka 500 and paid in irregular installments. But she never got back her deposit from Grameen Bank. At that period due to the economic hardship and the pressure of a loan from Muhammad Yunus’ Grameen Bank, Sufia’s elder daughter lost her mental balance. Sufia’s economic fate was so miserable that she could not take any loan from either Grameen Bank or any other NGO.
Sufia’s daughter Nurun Nahar told Danish investigative journalist Tom Heinemann that after receiving the Nobel Prize when Yunus visited Jobra village, Grameen Bank had forced the locals to collect money for buying flower bouquets for Yunus. At that time, Muhammad Yunus, in the presence of the villagers, had promised to provide financial assistance to Sufia Begum’s family so that they could build a new house. But this was just a false promise. Instead of helping Sufia Begum’s family in repairing their broken hut, a propaganda team of Yunus sent journalists from France, China, Germany, and a few more countries to Jobra village and film an adjacent building and claim it to be owned by Sufia Begum. In reality – the building belongs to an expatriate named Jabel Hussain who lives in Dubai.
Sadly, Sufia Begum is not an exceptional case. There have been many reports of victims of this vicious debt cycle attempting suicide for failing to repay the loans. Allegations of inadequate support for borrowers’ families have been pointed to the exploiting tendency of the Grameen Bank which was far harsher than the dream shown.
A documentary titled ‘Caught in Micro Debt,’ produced by Danish journalist Tom Heinemann underscores the fact that the notion of ‘Microcredit and poverty alleviation’ touted by institutions like Grameen Bank is, in reality, an empty and hollow slogan.
Individuals facing financial hardship, both men and women, have found it challenging to utilize loans obtained from numerous NGOs, including Grameen Bank, for productive investments. These organizations entice the impoverished with various allures and unrealistic visions to encourage loan uptake. Unfortunately, there is a lack of oversight regarding the utilization of loan funds. Many People borrowed money for purposes like dowries, children’s education, debt settlement, and household furniture purchases. Consequently, when the time comes to repay the loan along with interest, they find themselves in dire financial straits. The borrowers’ quality of life doesn’t necessarily improve; instead, they often face greater burdens.
Despite Grameen Bank’s 41-year history of microcredit implementation, there exists no conclusive evidence indicating its efficacy in lifting impoverished individuals out of destitution but media reports suggest otherwise that thousands are getting ultra-poor after being trapped in high-interest loans from Dr Yunus’ initiatives.