Case Law On Evaly Fraud Prosecutions In Bangladesh
Case 1
Parties & Facts: A customer (Mujahid Hasan Fahim) ordered a motorbike from Evaly on 20 February 2021 and paid in advance. The company failed to deliver within the promised 45 days. The customer was later given a cheque for Tk 500,000 but was instructed not to encash it due to insufficient funds. After repeated follow‑up, he filed a case in January 2024.
Charges: Fraud/cheating, criminal breach of trust (non‑delivery of paid goods) by company executives.
Judgment: On 6 April 2025 a Dhaka Metropolitan Magistrate convicted the company’s Chairman and MD, sentencing each to 3 years’ imprisonment and fining Tk 5,000 each (default 6 months).
Significance: This is among the earlier convictions, showing the courts treat e‑commerce advance‑payment‑non‑delivery as a criminal matter.
Case 2
Parties & Facts: A customer, Abul Kalam Azad, alleged that he paid Tk 2.3 million (23 lakh) to Evaly in 2021 for eleven motorcycles, but neither the motorcycles were delivered nor refund given. He filed a complaint on 7 December 2023.
Charges: Fraud, embezzlement of funds, criminal breach of trust.
Judgment: On 18 September 2025 a Dhaka court (Metropolitan Magistrate) sentenced the Chief Executive Officer and Chairperson of Evaly to 3 years of rigorous imprisonment each and fined Tk 10,000 each (or default 3 months).
Significance: Demonstrates that the top executives of the e‑commerce company are being held personally liable in fraud cases, and that larger value transactions attract more serious sentences.
Case 3
Parties & Facts: In Satkhira district a customer (Sheikh Tanzir Ahmed) issued a bank cheque to Evaly for a motorbike purchase. Evaly failed to deliver and the cheque was dishonoured by the bank. A case was filed under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Charges: Dishonour of cheque under the Negotiable Instruments Act; fraud / breach of trust by non‑delivery after payment.
Judgment: On 22 June 2025 the Satkhira court sentenced Evaly’s CEO to 3 months non‑rigorous imprisonment and fined Tk 155,000. He was absent when judgment was delivered.
Significance: Shows alternative legal routes (cheque dishonour) being used against the company, illustrating multi‑faceted legal exposure for e‑commerce fraud beyond just “fraud” charges.
Case 4
Parties & Facts: On 29 January 2025 (as per press reports) the Chairman and MD were sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment (and fine Tk 10,000 each) in a fraud case where a plaintiff had ordered expensive bikes and received no delivery. The company reportedly gave cheques that the plaintiff could not deposit due to insufficient funds.
Charges: Fraud, criminal breach of trust, non‑delivery of paid goods.
Judgment: 2 years’ imprisonment, fine or default more term. Arrest warrants issued since the accused were absconding at the time.
Significance: Reinforces the pattern of repeated convictions in separate complaints, demonstrating a cumulative legal risk for the executives of Evaly.
Case 5
Parties & Facts: On 2 January 2024 a Chattogram court handed them 1 year of imprisonment in another customer complaint case (details of product & payment vary).
Charges: Fraud/breach of trust by accepting payment and failing to deliver goods.
Judgment: 1 year imprisonment (and fine/default term) obtained; arrested warrants issued as defendants were not present.
Significance: Shows that multiple jurisdictions (Dhaka, Chattogram, Satkhira) are processing cases against Evaly, indicating simultaneous prosecutions in parallel forums.
Case 6
Procedural/Strategic case: Plea to stay criminal trials
Facts: The CEO (Rassel) and Chairperson (Shamima) of Evaly filed a petition seeking to stop all criminal trials against them.
Issue: Whether criminal proceedings should be stayed pending other considerations (corporate restructuring, regulatory oversight).
Decision: The High Court refused to stay the trials and held that there is no bar to continuing criminal cases against the executives.
Significance: Even though this is not a “victim‑complaint” judgement, it is pivotal — it confirms that judicial process will not be delayed simply by virtue of the accused being higher‑level executives or corporate persons.
Legal Themes & Analysis
These cases illustrate that in Bangladesh e‑commerce fraud (advance payments with non‑delivery) is treated as criminal fraud/cheating and criminal breach of trust — not just civil contract breach.
Executives of the company are being held personally liable, showing judicial willingness to “pierce the corporate veil” in cases of fraudulent business models.
Different legal avenues are used: cheating (Penal Code), negotiable instruments (dishonoured cheque), regulatory/consumer protection angles.
The sentences range (1 year to 3 years) and fines accompany imprisonment; default terms increase the punishment.
Many of the accused are absconding at time of verdict, which raises enforcement and asset‑recovery issues.
The procedural decision (HC refusing to stay trials) is crucial to prevent delays and ensure accountability.
RELATED Blog
comments