Simpaisa and aamarPay deny involvement in money laundering
Simpaisa and aamarPay have sent a rejoinder to Asia Post over a report published in the news portal titled, “Amar Pay’ kine shondehojonok lenden Pakistani protishthaner”.
In their letter signed by S Farid, the companies said the article could be read as suggesting three things they say do not reflect the facts: that Simpaisa has already acquired and exercises control over aamarPay; that aamarPay knowingly enabled prohibited merchants or suspicious transactions; and that the businesses were involved in unlawful foreign-exchange settlement, money laundering, hundi or similar arrangements. Their understanding of the relevant facts, they said, is materially different, and they asked Asia Post to review the relevant passages of the article in light of the clarifications set out below.
No formal request for comment, companies say
According to the letter, the reporter did not send a formal request for comment to Simpaisa or aamarPay through the companies' official channels before the article was published. Informal communications were instead sent to members of the leadership team, including chief executive Sanjana Farid and Yassir Pasha, and the companies said their representatives had asked that any questions be put in writing through official channels so they could be properly reviewed. No written inquiry followed, according to the letter.
Compliance measures under current leadership
The letter also sets out changes aamarPay says it has made to its merchant-onboarding and compliance processes. Following what the company called a comprehensive review of legacy practices, it said it had introduced standardised Know Your Customer and Customer Due Diligence policies aligned with Bangladesh Bank requirements, reviewed old merchant accounts and deactivated or terminated inactive or non-compliant merchant IDs, and made background checks and formal approvals mandatory for onboarding new merchants.
Sub-merchant transactions
On the question of prohibited merchants, aamarPay's position, as set out in the letter, is that it has not knowingly onboarded, processed or facilitated transactions connected to gambling, adult content or any other restricted activity, whether through a direct merchant or a sub-merchant arrangement. The company said principal merchants and sub-merchants are required to complete KYC and due-diligence checks and to agree to acceptable-use terms before being integrated into its systems.
The letter acknowledged that a merchant might later change the nature of its business, redirect a transaction endpoint, or misrepresent its activities after onboarding. Where this happens without aamarPay's knowledge or authorisation, the companies said, it would be contrary to the merchant's contractual obligations. When suspicious or restricted activity is flagged through operator alerts or internal controls, the letter said, aamarPay's practice is to suspend the merchant ID involved, hold pending payouts where legally permitted, investigate, and terminate the relationship where appropriate.
The companies argued that misconduct by an individual merchant or third party should be distinguished from deliberate facilitation by the payment platform itself, unless there is verified transaction-level evidence of knowledge or involvement.
They said they would welcome the opportunity to review any transaction records or source material Asia Post relied on, and would consider referring matters to the relevant authorities if warranted. They also asked Asia Post to reconsider naming individual merchants, platforms or clients where there is no verified and necessary connection to alleged wrongdoing, citing the potential commercial and reputational impact on unrelated third parties.
Domestic payments versus cross-border remittance
The letter draws a distinction between domestic payment collection and cross-border foreign-exchange remittance. The companies said aamarPay, as a licensed Payment System Operator, is authorised to acquire and process domestic transactions in Bangladeshi Taka, while outward foreign-exchange remittance is a separate activity requiring Authorised Dealer banks and central bank approval.
Formal applications relating to proposed arrangements for international platforms have been submitted to Bangladesh Bank and remain under regulatory review, according to the letter. Pending those approvals, the companies said aamarPay did not convert the relevant funds into foreign currency or carry out outward cross-border remittances, and they asked that the article distinguish between the collection of domestic Taka payments and the separate regulatory process governing foreign-exchange remittances.
Money-laundering and hundi characterisation disputed
The companies said they were particularly concerned about the article's use of terms such as money laundering, hundi and unlawful netting, given the serious legal and reputational weight those words carry.
Their position, as set out in the letter, is that the inward remittance flows in question were processed through licensed, group-affiliated Money Services Businesses working with recognised international Money Transfer Operators and formal banking channels — routed through licensed scheduled banks in Bangladesh and paid to domestic beneficiaries in Taka, with eligible recipients also receiving the government's cash incentive for lawful wage remittances.
On that basis, the companies described the transactions as recorded and bank-settled, conducted through the formal financial system rather than outside recognised banking channels. They said cross-border inward remittances were managed by licensed international entities within their own regulatory frameworks, with local distribution completed through Bangladeshi banks, and that aamarPay did not carry out illegal netting, off-market currency balancing, foreign-exchange conversion or outward remittance while the relevant approvals were pending.
The letter asked Asia Post to review the basis on which the terms money laundering, hundi and illegal netting were used, and to share any verified evidence supporting those descriptions, saying the companies would welcome a fair opportunity to respond to such material. If the available evidence does not support the characterisations, the companies said, they would ask that the wording be amended or removed to reflect the distinction between regulated inward remittance activity, domestic Taka settlement and outward foreign-exchange remittance.
Status of the ownership transfer (Change of Control)
On the question of ownership, the letter said the position has since moved on. Following receipt of the relevant clearances from Bangladesh Bank, the companies said, the approved transaction has now been completed and the corresponding shareholding and legal ownership transferred in line with applicable regulatory and corporate procedures. Before those approvals were received and the share transfer completed, the letter said, no controlling shareholding or legal ownership had passed to Simpaisa and no formal change of control had taken place.
During that earlier period, the companies said, Simpaisa provided limited technical, operational and compliance support to aamarPay — including assistance with internal controls, compliance frameworks and operating systems — intended to support the continuity and strengthening of aamarPay's operations, and this did not in itself amount to a transfer of ownership or control. The investment structure and proposed ownership changes were disclosed to Bangladesh Bank through the applicable regulatory process, the letter said, with approvals obtained before the share transfers were executed.
The companies asked that any references in the article suggesting Simpaisa had acquired or assumed control of aamarPay without the required regulatory approvals be reviewed and corrected to reflect that the transfer was completed only after Bangladesh Bank's approval.