Is Returning Funds After Being Found Guilty a Way to Avoid Punishment?
Image source: NRB
Published
Reading time: 4 minutes
The CPN-UML, which was previously led by the government, has confirmed that funds spent by former heads of state and government leaders on medical treatment abroad were returned to the government treasury.
According to details confirmed by the Ministry of Finance, approximately NPR 37 million was deposited back into the government treasury for medical treatment expenses related to former President Ram Baran Yadav, former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, and Jhalanath Khanal. The CPN-UML has also confirmed the refund of these amounts.
A former Supreme Court justice has stated that returning the money does not exempt one from legal proceedings or punishments.
The Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) is conducting an ongoing investigation on the matter and has stated that due to confidentiality, details cannot be disclosed.
High-ranking government officials and constitutional body members have long been using significant public funds for treatment expenses, drawing widespread public criticism.
The Supreme Court recently annulled the related procedural regulations.
Are There Legal Provisions for Covering Medical Treatment Expenses?
Image source: Reuters
According to the Ministry of Finance, NPR 4,427,000 for the treatment of former President Ram Baran Yadav, NPR 26,300,000 in the name of former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, and NPR 6,003,000 for former Prime Minister Jhalanath Khanal were refunded.
The statement notes that the treatment expenses were refunded with interest, and the amount was deposited into the Rastriya Banijya Bank on Jestha 1.
Bishma Adhikari, secretary at the CPN-UML party office, also confirmed that the party handed over the amount to the government treasury.
“We are not obstacles to good governance. Accordingly, around NPR 40 million was deposited into the state treasury from our funds,” he stated.
According to the Public Health Act 2075, no one is permitted to use state funds for personal medical treatment.
Section 30 of the act specifies that foreign medical expenses will not be covered, stating, “Regardless of any laws, if someone needs to seek treatment abroad, the government will not bear the costs.”
Prior to the Public Health Act, earlier laws allowed heads of government and others, upon medical board recommendation, to receive treatment abroad—this is where positive expenditure was incurred.
The President and Vice President Remuneration and Facilities Act 2074, section 9, stipulates that the government will bear the costs for medical treatment abroad.
Similarly, section 12 of the Minister’s Remuneration Act 2049 provides that the state will cover medical expenses abroad.
An amendment on Shrawan 14, 2082 removed the eligibility of ministers, including prime ministers and deputy ministers, for such benefits.
The Citizen Relief and Financial Assistance Regulation 2073 allowed former distinguished persons to have their medical treatment abroad covered by the government.
Former presidents, ex-members of parliament, and former constitutional officeholders fall under this category.
However, the Supreme Court annulled the procedural regulations on this basis, highlighting discrepancies between laws and regulations. Roughly three weeks ago, regulations regarding foreign treatment were also struck down.
Does Returning Funds Prevent Legal Action?
Image source: RSS
Former Justice KC states that even if funds are returned during an ongoing investigation, legal proceedings cannot be dismissed.
“Returning the money does not mean the case will not proceed. The case must go forward. It is corruption by law, regardless of whether the accused is a president or former prime minister. Legal action is necessary,” he said.
“No one gets exemption from prosecution by returning bribes. Likewise, no one avoids punishment after theft. Even if money is refunded, the case must proceed. The court may later reduce or waive punishment, but cannot stop the case.”
He criticized past ruling parties for acting with the mindset that they could do anything under government control and receiving unlawful benefits accordingly.
“All irregularities in the record must be thoroughly investigated,” he added.
Justice KC also emphasized the need to identify who leaked information about the investigation relating to CPN-UML’s refund and to hold the guilty accountable.
The CIAA spokesperson Suresh Nyaupane said the investigation remains confidential and no details can be disclosed externally.
“Investigators conduct their work confidentially. We do not have information about it,” he said.
“If someone leaked information, it must be verified. I do not believe the CIAA leaked it. Claims based on external sources cannot be accepted without evidence.”
This report is also available on YouTube and social media platforms.