Imagine losing your home, your assets, and still facing the threat of jail—all for the same debt. This is the harsh reality for many borrowers caught in a controversial legal web spun by banks. But here's where it gets even more shocking: banks are increasingly pursuing a dual legal strategy that critics argue amounts to double jeopardy, leaving borrowers trapped in a cycle of financial ruin and legal persecution.
Here’s how it works: When borrowers default on loans, banks file civil cases in Money Loan Courts to recover their dues. Simultaneously, they initiate criminal cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act, leveraging post-dated or blank cheques taken as additional security. The result? Borrowers often lose their mortgaged property but still face criminal charges, including imprisonment or hefty fines, for the very same loan amount. And this is the part most people miss: this dual approach is not only legally questionable but also raises serious ethical concerns about fairness and proportionality.
Legal experts warn that without regulatory intervention or clear judicial guidance, thousands of borrowers remain vulnerable to these overlapping proceedings. Advocate Emran Ahmed Bhuiyan, a bank and company law expert, calls it “unquestionably an abuse of the law.” He points out that banks recover their dues through civil verdicts, yet borrowers are further punished under criminal cheque dishonour cases. This raises a critical question: Is this a fair practice, or is it an exploitation of the legal system?
The scale of the issue is staggering. As of November last year, over 324,804 cheque dishonour cases, involving nearly Tk450,000 crore, were pending nationwide. Of these, roughly 176,000 cases—linked to about Tk244,000 crore—were filed by banks and non-banking financial institutions (NBFIs) to recover defaulted loans. In 2024 alone, banks lodged around 26,000 cheque dishonour cases, and another 29,000 were filed between January and November 2025. This trend underscores a growing reliance on criminal proceedings for loan recovery, often at the expense of borrowers’ livelihoods.
Take the case of Sadiqul Islam Jibon, a businessman from Narayanganj. After defaulting on a Tk7 crore loan from Sonali Bank, the bank filed a loan recovery case in 2015 and simultaneously initiated a cheque dishonour case using 30 post-dated blank cheques. In 2021, the loan court ruled in the bank’s favour, and Jibon lost his four-storey house and 30 kathas of land. But the ordeal didn’t end there. In February 2022, he was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment and ordered to repay Tk11 crore. To secure bail, he had to deposit Tk5.5 crore—an impossible feat after losing his assets. “Even after the loan court verdict, the cheque case continued,” Jibon lamented. “The bank had already taken my property. I had no way to pay.”
Jibon’s case is not unique. Small and medium borrowers are particularly vulnerable, as banks often take both mortgaged property and blank cheques from them, while larger borrowers are rarely subjected to such measures. This double standard raises another controversial question: Are banks targeting the most vulnerable borrowers?
The High Court has intervened in several cases, staying proceedings and even quashing cheque dishonour cases. For instance, businessman Lipu Rahman challenged a cheque case filed by Janata Bank, and the High Court stayed the proceedings before quashing the case in September. Between January and November this year, the High Court stayed 19,406 cheque dishonour cases filed by banks and NBFIs, involving nearly Tk15,000 crore. Yet, these stays do not prevent banks from continuing loan recovery proceedings in civil courts.
The legal landscape remains uncertain. In November 2022, the High Court ruled that banks cannot file cheque dishonour cases solely for loan recovery and urged Bangladesh Bank to issue guidelines. However, the Appellate Division stayed this ruling, leaving the issue unresolved. Bangladesh Bank spokesperson Arif Hossain Khan acknowledged that while the central bank discourages taking cheques as loan security, it lacks the authority to intervene due to the stay on the High Court ruling.
Here’s the bigger question for you: Is this dual legal strategy a necessary tool for banks to recover loans, or is it an unjust system that preys on vulnerable borrowers? Should there be stricter regulations to prevent such overlapping proceedings? Share your thoughts in the comments—this is a debate that needs your voice.
