Government citizen government formed on Gen-Z movement has taken a controversial decision. The government has decided to withdraw money laundering and organized crime charges against more than 50 accused persons across the country, including Rabi Lamichhane, Chhabilal Joshi, GB Rai and others in cooperative fraud cases.
This decision has created strong debate in political, legal and public circles. The main question now is whether this decision is right or wrong. Three days ago, we had already explained in our news that this process could not stop with one person. Read the detailed legal analysis here: Can Rabi Lamichhane’s case be withdrawn under Nepal law?
Withdrawal of Serious Charges Nationwide
The Office of the Attorney General, which earlier allowed amendment of charges only in Rabi Lamichhane’s case, has now instructed government attorney offices across the country to withdraw money laundering and organized crime charges against all accused involved in cooperative cases. Prosecutors can now move forward only with cooperative fraud charges.
Core Question: Right or Wrong?
There are two angles to this. One is from the cooperative victims’ perspective. The other is from the legal and political perspective.
Victims’ Perspective: Fast Refund
It has been almost three years since cooperative fraud cases came into public attention. Victims started filing complaints saying their lifetime savings were looted.Hundreds of people were arrested, some released on bail, some still in jail. But more than 90 percent of cooperative victims have not received even one rupee back.
Even if the accused say they are ready to return the money with interest, current law does not allow immediate repayment when money laundering and organized crime charges exist.
Why Victims Cannot Get Money When Serious Charges Exist
Under current law, if a person is charged only with cooperative fraud, they can return victims’ money and settle the case. But if the same person is also charged with money laundering and organized crime, settlement is not allowed. Victims can get their money only after the district court gives final verdict proving fraud and amount involved.
Organized Crime Cases Take Years
Organized crime means crime by more than one person in a planned way. In such cases, all accused must be arrested, statements recorded, evidence collected, and responsibility divided. This process alone takes years. Even after district court verdict, higher courts may review. Such cases take at least three to four years, sometimes five to ten years.
Victims Want Fast Refund Over Long Justice
From victims’ view, priority is clear. They want their money back soon. Waiting five to ten years for justice is impossible for many families. That is why dropping serious charges and moving only with cooperative fraud charges seems reasonable. Even if accused escape heavier punishment, victims can get money back faster.
Legal and Political Angle: Wrong Decision
From legal and political view, this decision seems wrong. It applies to all cooperative fraud accused across Nepal. Now anyone who looted cooperative money can return money, settle the case and walk free. Whether fraud was planned or organized no longer matters.
Crime Is More Than Money
Crime is not only about money but also accountability. If someone planned fraud and looted savings, returning money alone should not be enough. Punishment for the crime is necessary to prevent future crime.
Law Prohibits Withdrawal of Money Laundering Cases
Nepal’s Criminal Procedure Code 2074 clearly prohibits withdrawal of money laundering cases. Section 116(2)(a) states that cases related to corruption, human trafficking, drug trafficking, organized crime and money laundering cannot be withdrawn. Despite this, the government has taken this decision ignoring the law.
Final Decision Now With Supreme Court
Because of this, both sides interpret the decision based on their interest. Victims see hope for fast refund, legal experts see violation of law. A writ petition is filed against the Attorney General’s decision. The final answer will come from the Supreme Court. Until then, the debate continues.
