Is PK Halder brand of the financial sector?

Let's face it. No one trusts the financial sector and a very potent symbol of that is the face of PK Halder. That he stole and left Bangladesh in league with his colleagues, several Bangladesh Bank officials and other members of the system is not a secret.
Billions of taka were stolen and very little returned. The International Leasing and Financial Co and its current regime have informed some of its clients that a big scheme is on to return all the money and other plans are in the oven. However, almost three years after the theft broke cover and that too only after Halder ran away, nothing has happened.
In a country where financial scandals are a dime a dozen, ordinary everyday thefts don't even raise an eyebrow. People just don't care because they know they can do little about it. That is because theft in financial institution is not incidental but systemic. It means that PK Halder is not the criminal but the system operates in such a way that theft is inevitable and protection of the theft is inevitable too. So by criminalizing individuals we protect the system. Its guilt by association we should be discussing rather than guilt by intent.
THE STRUCTURAL GUILT
The banking system is not built around investing clients' deposits but owning an economic access mechanism that allows the powerful to increase their ability to gain more resources from deposit holders. It's not profit from investment but profit from access. It's not a conventional banking or financial institution management based sector but a resource accessing sector.
It basically means that services are available and not necessarily universal but it's a high profit-driven sector that has produced its own institutions unique to network capitalism.
So it's not the guilt of an institution or a bank or even a sector because of what they do but its nature. One may argue that such a configuration runs counter to what is understood as financial services but that is how the financial sector looks, a high risk zone. Since "corruption is not an issue in such an economic system, those seeking banking services including safety of their money by making deposits are stepping into a high risk sector by choice.
Thus individual players are not guilty as to survive they have to play by the rules of the sector and it's the sector and the system that determines their behavior.
THE HOUSE THAT HALDER BUILT
The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) which could do or did nothing when Halder was scamming everyone has banned 40 officials of several financial institutions from traveling abroad. Apparently, a list has also been sent to the immigration officials but as everyone knows, none prevented Halder from fleeing and several fingers have been pointed to active collusion by those responsible for preventing. If nothing it showed how the system operates. The thief is protected in the name of inefficiency and bureaucratic delays.
Reports say that the names were known to the authorities for long but no action was ever taken because Halder himself was immune to arrest. It's when he ran out of schemes that he left. Worse, the authorities didn't even know where he was and kept mentioning Canada when in reality he was in India. Many believe this was deliberate so that calls for his return would not be made. His decision to leave was not prompted by law enforcement actions but the cost benefit analysis of scamming didn't add up anymore.
About 40 such people have been listed but far more people are needed to rip off approximately 35 billion taka. Halder ran his scheme for years and with the active cooperation of not just the business community but the financial sector and most importantly the regulatory and supervisory authorities. In other words, it's a collective effort which shows the limits of what the sector can do. What is cutely called "corruption" is misnamed as the sector largely operates around what would be called largely criminal practices or corruption. Its standard hence not a deviation.
True, it wouldn't apply to all and even all wouldn't be entirely corrupt but then no sectorial and systemic enrichment behavior is possible if access is put at risk by limiting funds. Hence even the notorious leasing companies sectors have outfits that are reliable but the rest don't enjoy that same level of confidence either. But the big question is not that. It's why the Bangladesh Bank claims itself to be the regulator but doesn't act accordingly.
HALDER AND THE BANGLADESH BANK
Halder is not a person and the BB is not an institution per se. They both reflect the face of the system that has been built around a sector that operates along non-performing/rogue loans as a key provider of monetary gain followed by outright theft at the higher end of gain. Regular reports of such loans and thefts and the complete inability of the regulators to prevent such acts and take actions that prevent future ones show systemic consent to the Halder method of getting rich.
And that is key to the understanding of the Halder syndrome. It may not be an inability to act but a systemic demand not to interfere with such acts. Halder reflects the extreme success of this model which carries some risks but as a whole is its most defining brand.
He is the brand the system has chosen for itself.

[email protected]