‘Charges of Organized Crime and Money Laundering Against Ravi Close Doors to Justice’

‘Issue Raised by Parliamentary Committee’

Documents and comments submitted from District Government Attorney Offices in Kathmandu, Rupandehi, Kaski, and others concerning cases for disposal indicate involvement of the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General in the review process. Below are the key details presented:

1. Ravi Lamichhane filed petitions related to ongoing court cases against cooperative directors in various courts concerning embezzlement and misappropriation of cooperative funds.

Requests were made to this office on the dates of Mangsir 23, Poush 20, and Poush 23, 2082 BS, to register cases against him on charges of cooperative fraud, organized crime, and money laundering motivated by political retaliation.

Reviewing the comments and associated documents related to the petitions, the following facts emerge—

a) There have been complaints lodged at various times regarding the misappropriation of savings held in cooperative institutions.

Subsequently, a Special Parliamentary Investigation Committee was formed in 2081 BS, under the Federal Parliament, to identify cooperative problems, suggest remedies, and recommend action against individuals involved in embezzlement.

The committee conducted a detailed study concerning the transfer of funds from various cooperatives to companies and submitted an investigation report in 2081 BS.

The report states, ‘Although no documents confirm Ravi Lamichhane’s involvement in the process of funds moving from cooperatives to Gorkha Media Pvt. Ltd., his participation in the operational expenditure process of this media company is evident’ (Parliamentary Special Investigation Committee Report, page 449).

The Federal Parliament Secretariat forwarded the report to the Government of Nepal, which in turn submitted recommendations concerning the Home Ministry’s authority to implement the parliamentary committee’s suggestions based on Cabinet decisions.

b) Consistent with these decisions, the Home Ministry directed the Nepal Police Headquarters to take necessary action.

This letter includes instructions to implement the recommendations of the parliamentary committee’s report.

The Police Headquarters corresponded with relevant districts to enforce the suggestions, and investigations have proceeded accordingly.

c) Based on the parliamentary and local investigation reports, the Kaski District Court filed a case on Ashoj 18, 2081 BS, accusing misuse of savers’ funds.

Additional Name Added Through Fraudulent Complaint

Following the initial charges, as early investigations failed to yield evidence, a subsequent complaint was filed adding complainant Ravi Lamichhane’s name. Based on both the parliamentary report and the new complaint, additional illegal charges were added without further investigation.

On Poush 7, 2081 BS, supplementary charges of cooperative fraud, organized crime, and money laundering were included, leading to a supplementary indictment.

d) On Poush 21, 2081 BS, a charge was filed in Kathmandu District Court related to the misuse of funds of depositors from Swarnalaxmi Multipurpose Cooperative Institution.

e) On Baishakh 3, 2081 BS, Rupandehi District Court filed charges related to the embezzlement of savers’ funds from Supreme Savings and Credit Cooperative Institution.

In the above-mentioned cooperative fraud cases, additional charges of organized crime and money laundering were also filed through supplementary indictments.

f) On Magh 22, 2081 BS, a case was registered in Chitwan District Court for fraud involving misuse of depositor funds of Sahara Chitwan Multipurpose Cooperative Ltd., with the complainant also named as a defendant.

g) On Ashoj 23, 2080 BS, a case was filed in Parsa District Court accusing misuse of funds from Sano Paila Savings and Credit Cooperative Ltd.

Subsequently, on Falgun 2, 2080 BS, an organized crime charge was added.

On Jestha 29, 2082 BS, individuals who were neither committee members nor cooperative affiliates were also named as defendants, with added charges of cooperative fraud and organized crime, resulting in a supplementary indictment.

Complaint from Narayan Bahadur Pahrai

Overall, cases center on misappropriation of savers’ funds in these cooperatives.

2) On Poush 3, 2082 BS, Narayan Bahadur Pahrai, a depositor from Supreme Cooperative in Rupandehi, submitted a notarized self-declaration with a petition stating that his original complaint was filed differently and challenged the manner in which his case was registered, but the court refused to register it, sending the documents via mail.

His letter states –

‘I have not filed any complaint outside the cooperative. Ravi Lamichhane did not mislead me to save money in the cooperative. It is inappropriate to file a complaint against those not responsible for the misuse of my savings. The complaint registered against me is entirely fabricated. My original complaint dates to Ashoj 4, 2081 BS.’

This self-declaration was notarized and submitted to the investigating officer and suggests conditions that differ from the prosecution’s narrative. The complainant’s self-declaration merits serious consideration.

Priority on Recovery of Savings

3) The initial cases all originated from the Special Parliamentary Investigation Committee, which clarified that Ravi Lamichhane had no involvement.

The committee recommended holding all concerned parties legally accountable for illegally taking or spending cooperative funds.

Upon the proper transfer of cooperative funds to companies, it was advised that these companies be regulated under the Company Act.

Cooperative victims and depositors have met with the Attorney General’s office delegations, appealing, ‘Regardless of who is implicated, our savings must be recovered.’

The key issue is that savers have been unable to recover their funds, which have been misused. It is the state’s paramount duty to protect the interests and funds of these depositors.

Depositors hoping to recover their money now file cases and complaints as their last resort.

Justice Barriers Evident

a) Except in Chitwan District Court, other courts have initially filed charges only for cooperative fraud but later added charges of organized crime and money laundering.

Section 131(a) of the Cooperative Act, 2074 (amended 2081), allows settlement for cooperative fraud but not for organized crime or money laundering offenses.

Savers, deprived of their funds, are compelled to resort to complaints as a final measure.

It is the state’s critical responsibility to ensure the swift return of savings earned through the labor of low-income earners.

‘Based on available information, when prosecution adds charges beyond cooperative fraud, such as organized crime and money laundering, it increasingly closes the door to justice for victims.’

If convicted for organized crime and money laundering, penalties including fines and asset confiscations are possible, which conflicts with the victims’ interests.

If deposited funds become indirectly associated with money laundering, they risk confiscation and loss.

b) Cooperative directors or involved parties can recover savers’ funds by claiming fake loans or opening fraudulent accounts.

Similarly, funds transferred from cooperatives to companies can be recovered by liquidating company assets.

However, if charges of organized crime and money laundering remain, even this legal recourse is blocked, contrary to victims’ expectations.

There is a legal justification to keep open pathways for settlements to resolve these issues.

c) The conclusions and recommendations of the Special Parliamentary Investigation Committee serve as the basis of these cases.

They highlight the need for medical and legal measures to restore savers’ funds.

‘Settlement Path Must Remain Open’

Maintaining charges of organized crime and money laundering likely closes off settlement avenues for cooperative savers.

The parliamentary committee stresses that savings must be refunded as swiftly as possible.

Therefore, although legal proceedings continue, arrangements should be made under the amended law to enable deposit refunds.

d) To achieve this objective, it is necessary to amend charges following Section 36 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 2074, ensuring justice for victims.

It is recommended that in initial, additional, and supplementary indictments, charges of organized crime and money laundering be removed, preserving the possibility of deposit refunds by amending accusations accordingly.

Decision to Withdraw Organized Crime and Money Laundering Charges

4) Based on the aforementioned factual and legal grounds, the following decision has been made:

a) Petitioner Ravi Lamichhane claims political retaliation via charges of cooperative fraud, organized crime, and money laundering and has requested case dismissal.

Under Section 36 of the Criminal Procedure Code, amendment of charges is warranted to prioritize the interests of victim savers.

In courts of Kaski, Kathmandu, Rupandehi, Parsa, and Chitwan districts, cooperative fraud charges will remain, but organized crime and money laundering charges will be removed through amendments.

Accordingly, notices will be sent to the respective District Government Attorney Offices to proceed further.

Poush 30, 2082 BS

Sabita Bhandari

Attorney General

……………………

Similarly, on Magh 2, 2082 BS, the phrase ‘claimed under the right of the individual’ was removed from the charge of money laundering in case number 4(K) item 11.

Magh 2, 2082 BS

Sabita Bhandari

Attorney General

(Edited excerpt of the Attorney General’s Office submission to the Supreme Court)