Police: Did you steal someone else's buffalo?The thief said in a loud voice: I have stolen someone's buffalo, I have not even seen a buffalo yet. I just pulled the mud, the buffalo got tangled in the mud, so what is my fault? Who are you to accuse me of being a thief? Don't you know who I am, how far I reach?

After the buffalo thief reprimanded the police, the police gathered courage and asked again: If so, why did you pull someone else's door?

Chor: Is it a crime to pull dirt? Isn't there a difference between pulling dirt and stealing a buffalo? Are you going to accuse me of being a buffalo thief?

Police: The buffalo that got entangled with the mud was found in your barn! 

Chor: Who was the one who tied the buffalo to the rope I pulled? He probably knows more about this than I do. Don't bother me unnecessarily about this. 

The questioning between the thief and the police could not proceed after the thief with influential access denied and claimed the stolen buffalo as his own. Later on, a high-level inquiry committee was formed to distinguish between the theft of buffaloes and the theft of buffaloes.

My friend Hemant Malla, who publicly expresses his views on security and police investigations, has tried to make the sarcastic comments relevant to the dialogue between the police and the buffalo thief relevant here. 

In fact, it seems that the issue of cooperative fraud has become a topic of political commentary and discussion after the fact that truth and falsehood should be resolved factually and justly has become a subject of political argument. Market politics has given birth to an alternative character, both cheating and cheating, to the issue of the imperative need to prevent the repetition of the old 'tested and failed' leaders who grew up in the politics of ideas recently. As market politics is only focused on demand and supply, as soon as there is an imbalance in the demand and supply of the common people, the real face of the alternative character gradually emerges. Ravi, an alternative character who was sent to oppose and resist the political character of 'No Not Again', is the purpose of her political entry to secure her past criminal actions? can be suspected. 

In the politics of a country like ours, since the possibility of government power going to the hands of quality and quality has weakened, it seems that people with double-minded tendencies who can tell lies have succeeded in stealing the dreams of citizens through the power of power. As stated in Chanakya Niti, in a country where the leader is of double character, either the neighbor or the corrupt rule the country. After erasing the borderline of who is a cheater and who is right in politics, it seems that the society is approving that the cheater is the right one. Even on the issue of legal process and investigation that should reveal the truth from the facts, everyone seems to be making claims and accusations of fraud and fraud in their own way based on political arguments and speculations. Now it seems that there is an unfair and inconsistent attempt to give a political color to the facts collected from the investigation regarding Ravi's involvement in the co-operative fraud. The subject of fraud and fraud had already been established.

Crimes of an economic nature like fraud mainly involve the involvement of three levels of people: taker, giver and eater. Even before the formation of the parliamentary investigation committee, the matter of who and what involvement is involved in cooperative fraud is a matter that has been clearly established by the facts related to the incident. However, due to the fact that the equation of power continues to influence the grammar of facts, it seems that this issue is being unnecessarily twisted. It seems that the issue of co-operative fraud and the real and just demands of the victimized public have been overshadowed due to the fact that the police investigation opinion report and the public prosecutor's indictment, the issue that should be settled by the prosecution, have been made a matter of political agreement and disagreement. Legally and practically, when defining financial crimes such as fraud, fraud is the criminal act of deceiving others and implicating one's guilt. In which the first person or group that plans to bend is prepared. Accordingly, the work is divided according to who, what and how to bend and twist. The main character who prepares the story-screenplay of the bending plan takes the damlo in his own hands and sends others to steal the buffalo. The person who leads all these works is the 'defacto actor' of the fraud crime, i.e. the person who takes the lead in the incident. Those who later have to bear the responsibility of the main criminal and the person who collects the fraudulent amount of the criminal responsibility as determined by the investigative and prosecutorial process. Because even as a result of the incident, he himself has managed to profit from the amount of fraud.