SS power rejoinder: The Daily Star retracts story

The rejoinder
The report titled “S Alam nexus laundered $815m through two LCs” published in the front page of The Daily Star on 26.09.2024 caught our attention with disbelief. We reject it with disdain as the contains of the report are unfounded. Your deliberate eye-catching headline is inaccurate and designed to mislead individuals at the absolute detriment of SS Power I Limited. The actual fact is stated below:
a) SS Power I Limited, (SSPIL) a China-Bangladesh joint venture, commenced its full commercial operations on October 26, 2023 under the Implementation Agreement (IA) and Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) signed respectively with the Ministry of Power, Energy and Mineral Resources (MPEMR), the Power Grid Company of Bangladesh (PGCB), and the Bangladesh Power Development Board (BPDB). It is the largest foreign investment in Bangladesh’s private sector, it contributes net 1224 MW of electricity to the national grid.
b) The project was executed under a Turnkey Contract basis with foreign contractors appointed on an EPC basis. They managed the engineering, procurement, and construction, ensuring the successful commissioning of the power plants. Upon completion, the fully operational facilities were handed over to SSPIL, with approval from all regulatory authorities, including BIDA and Bangladesh Bank.
c) The total project cost was $2.506 billion, of which $1.782 billion was financed by six Chinese banks, including $30 million from Rupali Bank PLC. Additionally, $230 million was invested in equity by two Chinese government-owned subsidiary companies. Notably, no payments were made by or to SS Power I Limited (SSPIL) from any loan from Bangladesh to the EPC contractors. Instead, the Lenders, through the Facility Agent, Bank of China (Singapore Branch), directly paid the EPC contractors based on invoices raised under the EPC contracts. These payments were made under the strict monitoring, control, and supervision of the Facility Agent, owners’ international engineer and lenders’ technical advisor with periodic reports submitted to Bangladesh Bank, ensuring full compliance and transparency, and preventing any possibility of defalcation.
d) The project is fully compliant with all regulatory requirements and ensures timely reporting to all relevant authorities. For the avoidance of doubt, all plants, equipment, and machinery designated for import were initially approved by the Bangladesh Power Development Board (BPDB). Additionally, BPDB was issued a Tax Waiver Certificate for each consignment under the relevant Statutory Regulatory Order (SRO) from the National Board of Revenue (NBR) to facilitate duty and tax waivers as per the signed Implementation Agreement (IA) and Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). These items were imported under Import Permits issued by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports (CCI&E) on a case-by-case basis, following recommendations from BPDB. All customs clearance was completed in compliance with the respective Customs House, based on the duty-free certificates from BPDB and the Import Permits from CCI&E. Furthermore, Rupali Bank PLC, acting as the Onshore Security Agent for the syndicated foreign lenders, utilizes its systems to ensure accurate and timely reporting, thereby maintaining compliance with regulatory requirements.
e) To date, the company has contributed 16,053 million BDT to the National Exchequer in the form of Tax, VAT, Customs Duties, and other government fees and charges.
f) The reporter falsely alleged that “S Alam Group laundered $815.78m” under the project. We categorically deny this accusation of money laundering against SSPIL in the strongest terms. In reality, no unauthorized payments were possible to make from Bangladesh, because payments to EPC contractor, SEPCOIII were made directly from foreign lenders from foreign lender to EPC contractors’ banks.
g) The report further erroneously states that that the First LC No. 0000026319150005, dated 29.01.2019, valued at $121.96 million, and Second LC No. 0000026321150038, dated 30.05.2021, valued at $792.40 million, were taken out of the country. In so reporting, the reporter demonstrated a significant lack of knowledge of international project financing under the EPC contract. In fact, SSPIL imported plants, equipment, and machinery through Import Permit under EPC Contract. Subsequently, SSPIL submitted all relevant Bill of Entries/Invoices and documents to Rupali Bank for onward reporting to Bangladesh Bank. In its reporting to Bangladesh Bank, Rupali Bank utilized these LC numbers as reference for reporting purpose only as prescribed by Bangladesh Bank.
h) The report inaccurately alleges that one hundred eighty-four fraudulent invoices- 59 related to the first LC and 125 related to the second LC- were uploaded to the Bangladesh Bank server to facilitate the laundering of $815.78 million, without providing any clarification as to how these invoices are deemed fraudulent. In reality, SSPIL submitted all Bills of Entry/invoice after completing customs clearance to Rupali Bank for onward reporting to Bangladesh Bank. Furthermore, the Bill of Entries/Invoices submitted by the EPC contractors were approved only after thorough verification by the technical advisors, Black & Veatch and Mott MacDonald, ensuring their certifications for direct onward payment by the lenders, eliminating any possibility of error or the submission of fraudulent Bill Entries or Invoices.
i) The report further callously alleged that “there is no import data on our server against these two LCs,” referring to a Commissioner of Chattogram Customs House. In reality, SSPIL imported plants, equipment, and machinery under an Import Permit as part of the EPC contract. Since these items were imported using Import Permits, the issue of LCs does not arise. However, Rupali Bank used these LC numbers solely as a reference for reporting purposes to Bangladesh Bank.
j) The report further falsely stated that while the Bangladesh Bank server has entries for those 184 Invoices/Bills of Entries, they are missing from the NBR server. This claim is misconceived and absolutely false. All the Bills of Entries/ Invoices are indeed available on the NBR server, as well as accessible at the Chattogram Customs House.
k) The report alleged that payments were made under fake Invoices/Bill of Entries and from unrelated companies without providing any justification. In reality, there is no scope to make payments against the Bill of Entries/ Invoices which are unfounded. The whatever payments were made from Bangladesh Bank in favour of the Chinese Company/EPC contractor were made in pursuance of proper Bill of Entries/ Invoices which were duly authenticated by the technical advisors, Black & Veatch and Mott MacDonald as per the loan agreement dated 28.12.2018 and EPC Contract.
1) In regard to an Invoice/Bill of Entry bearing the future date of November 29, 2025, the reporter, despite having access to the original Invoice/Bill of Entry dated November 29, 2020, highlighted a typographical error made by Rupali Bank PLC, which incorrectly typed November 29, 2025. This misrepresentation was presented in a misleading manner, potentially deceiving the esteemed readers of the newspaper.
m) The report further imprecisely alleged that at least 30 are related to EXPORTS- not import-by different companies that have no links with the SSPIL. In fact, all documents submitted by the Company to Rupali Bank for onward reporting to Bangladesh Bank are accurate, genuine and specifically related to imports under the import permit.
n) The report also alleged that SSPIL violated the conditions of the Import Permit, a claim that has no basis. In fact, whatever payments were made from Bangladesh Bank against Advance Payment Guarantee (APG) in favour of the Chinese Company/EPC contractors were made in pursuance of proper Bill of Entries/ Invoices which were duly authenticated by the technical advisors, Black & Veatch and Mott MacDonald as per the Loan Agreement dated 28.12.2018 and EPC Contract.
o) In reporting the news, the reporter displayed a serious lack of understanding of the true scope of the Import Permit, the reporting system, and the syndicated loan structure in the international joint venture agreement under the EPC Contract. The report itself constitutes a deliberate misstatement and a smear campaign against the SSPIL.
p) Importantly, the CFO of SSPIL was contacted by the reporter for comments. The CFO provided a detailed explanation and refuted the allegations made in the draft reports, also submitting a written response. However, the reporter deliberately misquoted the CFO’s written reply, causing significant detriment to the company.
q) Given the critical nature of the matter involving national interest and the bilateral relationship with a major development partner state, the reporter utterly failed to exercise due diligence before publishing such a scandalous report. This blatant disregard for responsible journalism poses a significant threat to diplomatic relations with China.
r) Further, the allegations you raised against SSPIL in the news report are baseless and unfounded. There are no details, no evidence, no inquiries to support these claims. However, you gave a false statement to misguide and smear our image in public intentionally without exercising proper due diligence. This constitutes a valid case for seeking damages, and we reserve the right to take appropriate legal action if necessary.
Therefore, we do not wish to provide any further clarification on the details of the matter as they were wrongfully presented in the news report. Instead, we request that you publish a correction across all your digital platforms in the interest of your esteemed readers, ensuring equal coverage to undo the ill effect of the original article. We expect responsible and unbiased reporting, not sensationalism. Please do not allow yourself to be influenced by any vested interests and quarters.
In light of the situation, we formally request that you publish a corrigendum within seven days of receiving this rejoinder. Otherwise, we shall be constrained to pursue legal recourse for dissemination of false and frivolous information about our company in your publication. We sincerely hope you will rectify the matter by issuing a corrigendum that includes an apology for the erroneous reporting, especially considering the project’s national interest and the serious implications of such misinformation.
Our response
Following our story, we received two rejoinders — one from SS Power Limited and one from Rupali Bank. Over the last few days, we reviewed the official data that we used in our report and found that some of those official data from Bangladesh Bank, NBR and Rupali Bank needed further verification.
On October 3, 2024, we sat with officials of Rupali Bank, which originally uploaded the LC-related data used in our story on Bangladesh Bank server. The basis of our story came from that data, as well as other official data. In its official response to our queries at the October 3, 2024, meeting, Rupali Bank confirmed in writing that its officials “inadvertently uploaded 41 wrong invoice dates and 5 wrong invoice numbers” related to these LCs in their reporting to Bangladesh Bank. Such a large scale of incorrect data misled us to our conclusion about the claim of money laundering by SS Power. We now know we made a mistake.
We sincerely regret this professional error, which occasionally occurs when official data turn out to be wrong. Thus, even with the best of intentions, and with no malice towards the subject of our reports, we sometimes end up making mistakes even when we follow the highest standard of ethical journalism.
Nevertheless, we take responsibility for our mistake, stand corrected, and extend our sincere apology to SS Power Limited and our readers.  
Within half an hour of the confirmation of wrong data entry by Rupali Bank around 8:00pm on October 3, 2024, we removed the report from all our electronic platforms and published a notice on our website notifying the readers about the removal. We are now retracting the story from our print version.
We want to point out that the article was published in good faith, without any intention to harm or knowledge that such imputation will harm the subjects – we were never guided by such intention in our 33 years of journalism. The data we used were not our own data, they were official data still available on the servers of Bangladesh Bank, NBR and Rupali Bank. In this case, we fell victim to such wrongly presented information. 
We would like to reassure our readers that we will do everything we can to prevent recurrence of such mistakes.