British regulators have been urged by MPs to examine the relationship between London estate agents, lawyers and lenders and a former Bangladeshi government minister under investigation for alleged corruption.

Saifuzzaman Chowdhury was the land minister in Bangladesh until earlier this year, when the government of Sheikh Hasina was spectacularly toppled, after her regime’s violent suppression of student protests.

Chowdhury has since had his bank accounts frozen and is being investigated by Dhaka authorities, amid allegations of corruption against multiple members of the deposed government.

A lawyer acting for Chowdhury, whose UK real estate portfolio includes more than 250 properties worth an estimated £200m, has previously said that his client has “nothing to hide” and had acquired his wealth before entering politics.

Now an MP on the all-party parliamentary group (APPG) on anti-corruption has asked HM Revenue and Customs, the Financial Conduct Authority (FDCA) and the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) to investigate whether UK companies followed anti-money laundering rules when helping Chowdhury with property deals.

In letters seen by the Guardian, Labour MP Phil Brickell called on the three regulators to ensure that companies involved in the transactions “undertook adequate checks on the source of Mr Chowdhury’s wealth and funds”.

He urged HMRC, the FCA and the SRA to ensure that British estate agents, law firms and lenders had abided by their regulatory obligations.

“Showing that the UK is serious about making London the anti-corruption capital of the world requires proactive, swift and robust investigation where allegations of these kinds emerge,” he said.

Members of the parliamentary APPG on anti-corruption and responsible tax met last week to discuss how to assist Bangladesh in tracking UK assets linked to people under investigation by Dhaka authorities. The chair of the group, Joe Powell MP, has written to the National Crime Agency urging it to investigate assets in the UK linked to members of the former Bangladeshi regime, including Chowdhury.

The role of western companies that work with politically connected overseas business figures has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years, particularly after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Brickell wants regulators to check whether UK firms filed “suspicious activity reports”, which they must submit to law enforcement if they are concerned about potential money laundering, and whether they may have committed a criminal offence if they failed to do so.

The central bank of Bangladesh has frozen bank accounts belonging to Chowdhury and family members, while the country’s Anti-Corruption Commission is investigating allegations that he illegally acquired hundreds of millions of dollars and laundered it in the UK.

According to reports in Dhaka, British government officials have pledged to assist Bangladesh in locating any UK assets held by those under investigation.

The governor of Bangladesh’s central bank told the Financial Times last month that he had sought the UK’s help is investigating whether members of Hasina’s regime diverted £13bn of assets overseas.

He said he had asked the UK to identify the source of funds for £150m of Chowdhury’s property purchases, which include several luxury London mansions.

A lawyer for Chowdhury previously said his client was being subjected to a “witch-hunt” instigated by the new Bangladeshi regime and that there was a risk he could be the subject of a miscarriage of justice.

Chowdhury had said that his overseas assets had been funded by legitimate international business interests. Bangladeshi citizens are subject to a strict limit of $12,000 (£9,176) on assets that can be transferred out of the country.

The lawyer said he was no longer instructed by Chowdhury and Chowdhury did not return requests for comment sent to his personal email addresses.

A spokesperson for the SRA said: “We take the issue of potential breaches of money-laundering regulations very seriously and will take action if we find firms are not meeting these obligations.”

The FCA and HMRC declined to comment.