कान्तिपुर वेबसाईट
AdvertisementAdvertisement
२५.१२°C काठमाडौं
काठमाडौंमा वायुको गुणस्तर: ९१

Authority to the Supreme Court against the decision to clear Bhandari in the corruption case

भाद्र १३, २०८१
Authority to the Supreme Court against the decision to clear Bhandari in the corruption case
Disclaimer

We use Google Cloud Translation Services. Google requires we provide the following disclaimer relating to use of this service:

This service may contain translations powered by Google. Google disclaims all warranties related to the translations, expressed or implied, including any warranties of accuracy, reliability, and any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and noninfringement.

The Abuse of Authority Investigation Commission has filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the clearance given by the special court to the owner of a law firm, Bhimkant Bhandari, on charges of illegal wealth acquisition.

A special court cleared Bhandari on 21 October 2080 for filing a corruption case against Bhimkant Bhandari, who has been serving in the post of Nasu for 4 years.

On Wednesday, the Authority went to the Supreme Court against the decision of the special court to clear Bhandari in the corruption case.

The commission filed a corruption case against Bhandari in a special court on June 3, 2079, by fixing a fine of 65 million 65 thousand 642 rupees.

Narahari Ghimire, the spokesperson of the authority, said that the facts and evidence confirmed by the investigation were ignored in the special verdict, and because of this failure, he had to go for an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The bench of special judges Yamuna Bhattarai and Balabhadra Banstola gave a ruling on the case filed against Bhandari on 21st October 2080 that the demand of the authority was not met. After 8 months of being cleared by the Special Authority, the Authority went to the Supreme Court saying that the Special Authority had ignored the facts and evidence and made a decision that was flawed and contrary to the established precedent/recognition.

In the case of illegal acquisition of property and corruption, the public servant's extensive investments and expenses made immediately after his voluntary retirement by concealing and concealing the undisclosed assets acquired by abuse of office and directly denying the situation that can be brought into ownership or enjoyment of the income while in public office. It is said in the appeal filed by the Authority against the special verdict that it is flawed and the fact that it is seen to be unreliable and unconfirmed.

Bhandari was also involved in the gold smuggling case in Nepal along with the Chinese gang. The Central Investigation Bureau (CIB) of the police and the Commission of Inquiry on Control of Gold Smuggling also investigated him. Although both the Commission and the CIB included Bhandari as a person who should be kept under surveillance, he was released when a case was filed in the district court in Kathmandu in the case of gold smuggling.

Bhandari, who entered the public service from Naib Subba of the Government of Nepal on October 21, 2073, resigned from the service four years later on July 1, 2077. Within a few years of joining the service, he was pulled into the investigation for having unnaturally added property.

Bhandari, who had a normal economic condition when entering the service, invested unnaturally in business after his retirement and said that the property was part of the property acquired through illegal income.

After resigning from the government service, the authority investigated the investments made by Bhandari in Weed Management, Weed Automobile, Madi Minerals, VN Developers, Remit Company, land purchase, shares etc. However, it is mentioned in the decision of the Special that the matter invested by Bhandari after the special has left the service cannot be called illegal. However, the authority has called the issue of not entering the source of investment made by Bhandari after leaving the service as flawed and wrong.

While in government service, Bhandari worked in the secretariat of influential leaders who became ministers from the CPN Maoist Center. He was in the secretariat when leaders including Krishna Bahadur Mahara, Barshman Pun, Hitraj Pandey and Asha Koirala were ministers. He resigned from government service after 4 years and started business. After Bhandari resigned, in addition to running the Bid Lab during the Covid epidemic, Through his own lab/company, he was involved in the purchase of health materials to test for Covid.

Dawa Tshiring, who is currently in jail on charges of gold smuggling, facilitated himself while purchasing the equipment from China and he has admitted that he met the Chinese businessman. However, no investigation has been conducted on Bhandari regarding the transactions made through this relationship with the gold smuggler .

Although the police found facts such as the fact that Bhandari used to talk to Daw Chiring (currently in the Central Jail) who is accused of gold smuggling by addressing him as 'Dai', and that he was in contact with other gang members associated with Daw Chiring, there was no thorough investigation into this matter. In the appeal of the authority filed in the Supreme Court against the decision of

special, it was found that after going to Bhandari, a large investment was made immediately after that, and the period of examination of the defendant was set to one and a half years after his retirement from service, and the income and expenses of that period were also evaluated. It is mentioned.

It is stated in the appeal that the authority ignored the decision on the land, shares, and sources of income of other companies that were purchased within a short period of time. "The decision of the special court without analyzing the legal source of the defendant's income regarding this type of investment is found to be flawed," the appeal said.

'Jyoti Life Insurance Company, Nepal Infrastructure Development Bank Ltd. in the name of his wife Vimala Panthi and son Vivit Bhandari. The special court did not seriously evaluate the evidence of such investment in the matter of investing in the purchase of shares and not from the statutory income at that time. , it has been seen that he has invested and spent in the purchase of shares in various companies, it is clear that the defendant hid the illegally acquired property and brought it to the enjoyment of himself, his wife and son

प्रकाशित : भाद्र १३, २०८१ १८:००
x
×