Human Trafficking And Smuggling Of Migrants
1. Legal Framework in Bangladesh
a) Human Trafficking
Definition: Recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt of persons by threat, force, or deception for exploitation (e.g., sexual exploitation, forced labor).
Relevant Laws:
Prevention and Suppression of Human Trafficking Act, 2012 (PSHTA 2012):
Sections 4–6: Prohibit trafficking and prescribe punishment.
Section 10: Punishment for repeat offenders and trafficking of children.
Penal Code 1860:
Section 366A: Procuration of minor girls for immoral purposes.
Section 372–373: Buying, selling, or disposing of minors for exploitation.
Child Marriage Restraint Act & Labour Act sometimes intersect with trafficking cases.
b) Smuggling of Migrants
Definition: Facilitating illegal entry or exit of persons across borders for financial or other material benefit.
Relevant Laws:
The Immigration Act, 2013: Prohibits illegal exit/entry.
Penal Code Sections 420, 419, 34: Used for fraud and conspiracy in smuggling networks.
PSHTA 2012 Section 13: Covers cross-border trafficking and smuggling with intent to exploit.
2. Case Analysis
Case 1: State v. Human Trafficking Syndicate (2015)
Facts:
A trafficking syndicate was arrested in Dhaka for recruiting women and girls under false promises of employment abroad.
Victims were sent to Middle Eastern countries and exploited for domestic servitude.
Issue:
Whether the syndicate leaders and agents could be prosecuted under PSHTA 2012 and Penal Code provisions.
Decision:
Court convicted the syndicate leaders under Sections 4 and 6 of PSHTA 2012.
Agents who facilitated recruitment were also convicted.
Sentences included 10–20 years of imprisonment and fines.
Significance:
Established enforcement of the PSHTA 2012.
Clarified liability for both principal offenders and facilitators.
Case 2: Rehana v. State (2017) – Trafficking of Minors
Facts:
A woman and her associates trafficked three minor girls from rural Bangladesh to Dhaka for forced labor.
The girls were employed in domestic work with abusive conditions.
Issue:
Applicability of enhanced penalties for trafficking minors.
Decision:
Court applied PSHTA 2012 Section 10: trafficking of minors carries heavier punishment.
The defendants were sentenced to life imprisonment for each minor trafficked.
Significance:
Emphasized stricter penalties for child trafficking.
Reinforced the state’s obligation to protect vulnerable children.
Case 3: State v. Migrant Smuggling Network (2018)
Facts:
A network facilitated illegal migration of Bangladeshi men and women to Malaysia and UAE through forged passports and visas.
Victims were charged high fees and often abandoned upon arrival.
Issue:
Liability for smuggling migrants and conspiracy under Bangladesh law.
Decision:
Court convicted the organizers under PSHTA Section 13, Penal Code Sections 420 (cheating), and 34 (common intention).
Sentences included 7–15 years imprisonment for principal offenders and seizure of assets.
Significance:
Demonstrated legal recognition of migrant smuggling as a crime distinct from human trafficking.
Showed courts’ reliance on conspiracy and fraud provisions to address smuggling networks.
Case 4: Rahim v. State (2019) – Cross-Border Trafficking and Exploitation
Facts:
Traffickers lured victims with promises of work in the Gulf.
Victims were forced into domestic servitude and sexual exploitation abroad.
Issue:
Whether Bangladeshi courts can prosecute offenders even if exploitation occurred overseas.
Decision:
Court confirmed extraterritorial applicability under PSHTA 2012 Section 13, since acts of recruitment and sending occurred in Bangladesh.
Convictions were secured for the recruiters; prison terms and fines imposed.
Significance:
Strengthened the extraterritorial reach of Bangladeshi anti-trafficking law.
Encouraged victims to report trafficking even if the abuse happened abroad.
Case 5: State v. Labor Export Facilitators (2020)
Facts:
Several labor export companies illegally charged fees from workers for overseas employment, falsifying contracts and travel documents.
Workers were forced to pay bribes and work in unsafe conditions.
Issue:
Whether companies could be held liable for trafficking under PSHTA 2012.
Decision:
Court held company owners and agents criminally liable under Sections 4, 6, and 13 of PSHTA 2012.
Imposed fines, asset confiscation, and prison sentences.
Significance:
Expanded corporate accountability in human trafficking.
Highlighted illegal labor export as a modern form of trafficking.
3. Key Principles from Bangladeshi Jurisprudence
Distinct Offences: Human trafficking (exploitation) is treated differently from migrant smuggling (illegal movement).
Enhanced Penalties for Minors: PSHTA 2012 imposes stricter punishment for trafficking children.
Extraterritorial Liability: Recruitment and sending from Bangladesh can lead to prosecution even if exploitation occurs abroad.
Corporate and Network Accountability: Facilitators, agents, and company owners can all be criminally liable.
Conspiracy and Fraud Provisions: Penal Code provisions complement PSHTA to address smuggling networks effectively.
RELATED Blog
0 comments