Bangladesh has gone through a political transition. Since February, the BNP government has been in power. But despite the huge number of allegations raised over the past year and a half against Muhammad Yunus, there has been no visible progress in investigation or prosecution. This silence itself has now become a major public question.
Once celebrated globally as a symbol of poverty reduction and microfinance, Yunus is now facing growing criticism over alleged misuse of state-backed institutions, tax irregularities, financial misconduct, and abuse of power. Critics argue that behind the image of “social business,” a vast personal business network was built—one that primarily benefited Yunus and his close circle.
Who Controls Institutions Built with Public Resources?
Grameen Bank was established in 1983, largely with government-backed capital. Over time, institutions such as Grameen Kalyan and Grameen Fund were created under its umbrella. Critics claim that these organizations, originally tied to public resources, gradually came under the direct influence of Yunus personally.
According to allegations, after 2021, representatives from Grameen Bank were effectively removed from the boards of several affiliated organizations, while Yunus himself remained in top leadership positions. Critics say this turned institutions built with state resources into a privately controlled network.
Allegations of Tax Evasion and Financial Manipulation
Grameen Telecom, which owns a major stake in Grameenphone, is also at the center of controversy. Critics allege that dividends were transferred through affiliated entities in ways that avoided proper corporate taxation, causing the state to lose significant revenue over decades.
Questions have also been raised about Yunus’s personal tax records. Allegations claim that large amounts of foreign remittances and income were not fully disclosed in tax filings. Reports suggest there were major gaps between the money entering his bank accounts and the amounts declared officially.
Cases Dismissed After Political Change
Yunus previously faced cases related to labor law violations, unpaid taxes, and alleged money laundering. However, after the political transition, several of those cases were dismissed one after another, creating further controversy.
Critics argue that political influence played a role in the rapid dismissal of the cases. Supporters of Yunus, however, insist the charges were politically motivated from the beginning and claim the court decisions proved the accusations lacked strong legal basis.
Allegations of Using State Power for Institutional Benefit
Further criticism emerged over claims that institutions linked to Yunus received extraordinary state advantages while he held power. These reportedly included fast-track approvals for a university, financial service licenses, and long-term tax exemptions.
Political observers argue that if state authority was used to benefit personally connected institutions, it raises serious concerns about transparency, ethics, and conflict of interest in governance.
Why Is the BNP Government Silent?
The current government has so far shown little public interest in reopening investigations or pursuing accountability. Analysts believe there may be several reasons behind this silence.
One possible reason is diplomatic calculation. Yunus maintains strong international connections and influence in Western political and financial circles. Another reason may be internal political balancing, as some groups connected to Yunus reportedly maintain relationships within the broader political establishment.
There is also speculation that political parties themselves may hesitate to create a precedent where former national leaders face corruption-related accountability after leaving power.
Nobel Prize Does Not Remove Accountability
There is no denying the international recognition Yunus received after winning the Nobel Peace Prize. But critics argue that international awards should not place anyone above public accountability.
The growing debate surrounding Yunus is no longer just about one individual. It has become a wider discussion about state power, financial transparency, political influence, and whether powerful figures in Bangladesh can truly be held accountable under the law.
Bengali 
English