The presidential commission on corruption and asset recovery has been summoned to the Civil Court, over a case filed by the national bank.

While the Bank of Maldives (BML)’s complaint against the commission is unclear, a hearing has been set for 1pm on Thursday; at the court’s dispute resolution stage.

BML officials were summoned to the parliament’s public finance committee on Tuesday, regarding the over MVR 1.4 billion stolen from the state coffers through the Maldives Marketing and Public Relations Corporation (MMPRC) and a private company called SoF during the previous administration.

There, its deputy chief executive officer Mohamed Shareef had revealed that the bank stopped cooperating with authorities in the case, saying that it has been advised to not give out information “if there is no court order.”

He cited a High Court ruling issued this year, and Article 72 (e) of the Criminal Procedure Act which states that ‘despite clause (a), this article does not block investigative authorities or the prosecutor general from obtaining bank customer’s account details, deposits, trusts, safe deposit box details via writing, and in accordance with Article 41 of the Banking Act.’

Article 72 (a) states the instances in which authorities can obtain bank account details, while Article 41 of the Banking Act states that “a bank shall maintain confidentiality regarding all accounts, deposits, trusts, and safe deposit boxes of customers. It shall be prohibited to provide information on the aforesaid, directly or indirectly, without the written approval of the concerned customer or, in the event that the customer is deceased, without the consent of the customer’s legal representative, or one of the customer’s heirs or legatees or without the Order of a Court of law or without a written request from a designated criminal investigative authority or without a written request from the Prosecutor General or the existence of one of the cases permitted under this Act. This prohibition shall remain in effect even if the relationship between the customer and the bank ends for any reason.

BML is to have cooperated with investigative commissions until July 7.

RaajjeMV understands that the members of the asset recovery commission are being presented to court to determine the procedures in which such information can be provided.

Shareef further said that the bank has always sought legal counsel in such cases, and that they were advised that the information should not be provided without a court order.

Speaking on the matter, Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC)’s President Muavviz Rasheed told parliament’s committee on independent institutions, that the bank’s refusal to give out the required information has hindered the investigation.

BML denies any negligence in the MMPRC graft case, but admitted that they had only informed the Maldives Monetary Authority (MMA)’s Financial Intelligence Unit regarding recorded suspicious transactions.

While these transactions are to have been observed in 2015, the bank claims that MMA’s former deputy governor Neeza Imad and FIU’s former head Athif Shakoor of authorizing to release the accounts despite bank’s decision to withhold them.

Both Neeza and Athif deny the allegation, and have asked the public finance committee for the opportunity to present their sides.

Earlier this week, police revealed that that have yet to recover any of the funds stolen in the country’s biggest corruption case.