Eshaan Akbar - It is you who is talking stereotypes. You talk of 'these communities'.

Before I retired I could barely afford to pay tax on one job let alone hold down 2 or 3. 'These communities' as you call them, are probably working in the black, or grey, economy and pay little, if any tax.

I grew up in a time when sending money from the UK was severely restricted and so it should be now. Of course the financial contribution of immigrants to this country (I cannot force myself to give it a capital C) cannot easily be quantified - whilst Britain turns a blind eye and accepts the third world attitude towards finance we shall never have the true picture.

We have no obligation to feed and support the population of Bangladesh and should not expect new British citizens to do so with what should be our taxes.

If the real contribution of 'these communities' to Britain is off licences and kebab shops then we need to revisit our immigration policy with some urgency.

Paul O'Rourke, Rochester, UK

There appears to be an error in your article, money sent home by Bangladeshis in 2006-2007 was in the region of £2.9 Billion, not million!! quite a big difference! Before people like Lynda Plum start ranting about the amount of 'untaxed' money sent back by these 'Asians!', most of the money was sent back from the Middle East, not the UK. Also Lynda, First Solutions was a British company, registered and paying taxes in the UK. It was not even registered in Bangladesh. By the way which 'British' institution should they have used? HSBC (Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank), Abbey (Spanish Santander group) or perhaps Westernunion (USA). Your 'inuendos' about people money laundering, hiding ill gotten gains etc are dispicable and shows your ignorance. Finally, there are around 10,000 Indian restaurants in the UK owned by people of Bangladeshi origin, these businesses turnover £10 billion + pounds pa, their popularity alone shows that most British people are more broadminded!

K Hussain, West Midlands, Engand

Write about one subject and end up replying *?#@$"5&!

For those NOT so able to comprehend worldly matters, here is a simple explanation.

Those who send monies abroad today, comes back to their respective original countries tomorrow as EXPORT EARNINGS!!! The sterling stays in the UK accounts, lets say a well known Bangladeshi Bank the 'Sonali Bank', so when a Bangladeshi IMPORTER wishes to purchase British goods to sell in Bangladesh, he/she goes to the Sonali Bank giving them his Bangladeshi monies in exchange for sterling from UK official accounts and goes shopping here in UK. So my dear Plum and O'Rourke, in some ever long indirect means of business, your job is secure because of this process of sending monies abroad. The clue is in this statement, "The Department for International Development gave £7.5 million to the Bangladesh State Bank to enourage the switch." The UK government knows of the benefit to securing your job.

Keanu , Luton, UK

It is nothing to do with greed! Its common sense that if you can find a company providing the same service for cheaper- you will choose that company- we all do it, its called trying to find value for money.

First Solution messed up big time- if they recognised that the business was expanding more rapidly than they could cope with- why didn't the stop taking orders and make this public? Instead they decided to keep taking money off people who are already poor.

Money transfer companies have indeed expanded massively in the last few years, and its essential that they come under some sort of regulation like the FSA otherwise many easily fooled people who trust local businessmen will find themselves out of pocket more and more.

Sam, Manchester,

Lynda, your comments astound me. The individuals concerned were merely trying to send money to impoverished relatives and seem to be the victims of some unscrupulous businessmen. What is wrong with using a service that is designed to fit your needs? Money transfer companies are legitimate, for example Western Union, a multi-billion dollar American concern. Whether or not they are regulated is a decision for the Government.

I fail to see the criminality or culpability of those who were trying to send money to Bangladesh, and how they deserve their 'comeuppance'. It seems as though you are taking an opportunity to criticise 'these Asians' when in fact they have been defrauded. It is hard to have any sympathy for your argument.

J Barnet, London, UK

£1.7m declared as declared "lost". What about the money not declared. A great many people will use a service like this money transfer business to launder their ill gained funds. No-one should be surprised when this sort of enterprise fails. Why dont these Asian people use well known bona-fide, properly regulated British financial institutions to send their money overseas. The Asians living in this country, who no doubt call themselves "British" still want no truck with the indigenous institutions but prefer to stick with their own kind, so shouldnt bleat & cry foul when the wheel comes off & they lose out. I wonder how much tax has been paid on the funds that went through this company by the people depositing it. It seems that a number of people have received their come-uppance. I really hope that the labour government does not seize on this as an opportunity to curry favour from an ethnic group of probable & potential voters & compensate these people at the British tax payers expense

Lynda Plum, London, england

Paul O'Rourke - you make a stereotypical point there.

People from these communities (I come from Bangladeshi and Pakistani descendancy) will hold 2-3 jobs so that they are able to facilitate living in London whilst sending much needed money to their homeland.

The contribution of immigrants to the British economy cannot easily be quantified - the off licence you'll go to at 2 or 3am or the fried chicken/kebab shop you go to after a night out or even the off licences open on a Sunday are almost invariably run by immigrants (in London at least).

£100 a month is equivalent to approximately 1300-1400 Taka (the currency in Bangladesh) and that will be enough to run a poor family for at least 3 and a half weeks. The money they receive is essential for food, education, weddings and religious ceremonies.

Eshaan Akbar, London, England

This perfectly illustrates the lie that immigrants are financially benefitting this country. It is now quite obvious that a substantial portion of their income is being sent abroad.

Paul O'Rourke, Rochester, UK

If a small business is offering better rates than the established banks than there is a risk involved. In the end it is greed. Customers using this service wanted MORE than they were likely to get in the market place. I think it is called greed. Remember BCCI. They were offering better rates than the rest.

Kevin Murphy, Birmingham, United Kingdom

Another BCCI ?

Edward Johns, Lannion, France