With the issuance of an arrest warrant by the Kathmandu District Court for the investigation of money laundering-related crimes against former Prime Minister and former Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba and his wife Arju Rana, who is also a former Foreign Minister, interest has increased in how they will now be brought under the legal ambit. While the investigation is ongoing at the Money Laundering Investigation Department, the Deuba couple had gone to Singapore for medical treatment. The last time they were in Hong Kong, a photo was made public. It is not known where they are now.

If a person escapes while an investigation is ongoing for any crime, they can be brought to Nepal through Interpol. What process will the department adopt in the case of the Deuba couple? How effective will Interpol's cooperation be in this case? An attempt has been made to explain the 5 questions and answers.

For which crime is the Deuba couple being investigated?

Sher Bahadur Deuba has been Prime Minister 5 times and MP 7 times (member of the Constituent Assembly 2 times and member of the House of Representatives 5 times). Deuba's wife Arju has been Foreign Minister 1 time and MP 3 times. The department is conducting a detailed investigation against them for the crime of abusing public office and amassing wealth and laundering it. The department obtained an arrest warrant against the Deuba couple from the court on Wednesday.

The department had submitted a warrant to the Kathmandu District Court on Monday to arrest them. The commission has sought an arrest warrant against them under Sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section 9 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2074, Section 15 (a) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2064 and the following clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act.

Section 9 of the Criminal Procedure Code states that a person associated with the crime can be arrested. Sub-section 1 of the said section states that ‘If any person is found involved in an offence or is in the process of committing an offence, the police or an investigating officer may arrest him/her.’ However, if he/she is not arrested, the investigating officer can obtain an arrest warrant from the court against such person.

Sub-section 2 states that ‘If any person needs to be arrested immediately in the course of investigation of an offence under this section, he/she shall submit an application to the case officer for permission to issue an arrest warrant, stating the reason for the arrest and, if possible, stating the basis and reason for the arrest and, if possible, identifying the person to be arrested.’ Sub-section 4 states that the issuance of an arrest warrant to such a person shall be ‘in accordance with the format of the arrest warrant’. The department has obtained an arrest warrant against Deuba from the court based on this section.

The department has stated that an investigation is underway against the Deuba couple under Section 15 (a) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2064 and Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 16. Section 15 of the Act states that ‘investigation shall also be carried out in the case of money laundering offences’. Section 15 (a) provides for ‘investigation in accordance with the Prevention of Money Laundering Act’.

This section states, ‘Notwithstanding anything contained in other prevailing laws, if the investigating officer under this Act is required to investigate and register a case in a money laundering offence, he may adopt the powers and procedures under this Act in the case of offences related to that offence as well.’ In Chaitra 2080, through some amendments to Nepal Acts, the government amended the Money Laundering Act by amending the Parliament and gave that body the power to investigate and prosecute money laundering offences from the body that investigates the relevant offences.

In the case of the Deuba couple, the department has initiated the investigation by exercising the authority of Section 15 (a) of the amended Act in the absence of an investigation into the relevant offense. In which, it is mentioned in Sub-section 1 (a) of Section 16, ‘to order the submission of documents, records, details, information or data related to the offense of money laundering and financial investment in terrorist activities held by any government body, regulatory body, reporting institution or related person’. Under this section, the department had started a detailed investigation after finding evidence that it had collected details of the assets/movable and immovable properties in the name of the Deuba couple and their family. On 24 Bhadra, the department had started the investigation by making a deed of the notes found in the burnt state of Deuba’s house and the incident of that day, which is currently under detailed investigation.

Where are the Deuba couple, who are said to be outside the country?

The Deuba couple, who were fatally attacked on 24 Bhadra during the Gen-G movement, were rescued by the army and taken to the hospital. After some treatment in the hospital, both of them got new passports on 3 Asoj. Soon after, both of them got visas for Thailand. However, on 10 Kartik, they went to Singapore for treatment.

After staying in Singapore for about 3 weeks, both of them returned to Nepal on 28 Kartik. Then Arju went to India on 21 Poush citing family reasons. From there, she reached Singapore. Deuba, on the other hand, went to Singapore again for treatment on 13 Falgun, a week before the House of Representatives elections. Although a photo of the Deuba couple reaching Hong Kong was made public some time ago, his family has not confirmed this.

Deuba's son Jaybir also left Nepal for Thailand on 17 Bhadra, ahead of the Gen-G movement. He had come to Kathmandu from Thailand just three days ago (14 Bhadra). It is said that he also reached Hong Kong via Singapore after going to Thailand. However, it has not been officially confirmed.

How and through what process can the government bring the Deuba couple back from abroad?

The government can take the initiative with the Hong Kong government through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to bring the Deuba couple back. Nepal Police can also take formal/informal initiatives directly with the Hong Kong security apparatus in this regard. Apart from this, the International Police Organization, also known as Interpol, can also assist/coordinate the return of such persons to the country where they have committed crimes.

For this, the police of the country under investigation can, as a member state, seek assistance from the Interpol headquarters to arrest the absconding person. The 36th General Assembly of Interpol granted membership to Nepal. In the case of the Deuba couple, the government is also trying to bring them back by issuing a 'Red Notice' through Interpol.

What is the process of bringing them back to their home country?

In the event that an arrest warrant has been issued in the country where the accused committed the crime, Nepal can write to Interpol for a 'Red Notice' after looking at the status of the ongoing investigation against that person, the order issued by the court, and the status of the crime. Nepal Police represents Nepal as a member state in Interpol.

The NCB chief also makes various correspondence, requests, and requests to Interpol through the Interpol branch of his country. According to the letter sent by the NCB, the Interpol Headquarters Secretariat checks the necessary documents and if the process is completed, issues a notice and sends it to the police of the concerned country. After that, the person for whom the notice is issued is placed on the 'fugitive list' of the police of the Interpol member country and the search begins. If the documents are not received, they can be returned with information about what documents are not received.

Is Interpol a binding mechanism?

Interpol is an effective mechanism in criminal investigation, exchange of information related to it and enhancing the capacity of the police of the member countries to investigate crimes. However, former DIG of Nepal Police Hemant Malla says that the functioning of this mechanism is not binding.

According to Malla, the functioning of Interpol and the 'red notices' issued through it are not binding for every country. He says that the 'red notice' is not very meaningful if the country does not want to return the person for whom the notice is issued. Pawan Kumar Karki, who had absconded in Nepal after committing a banking crime, had reached the US. Karki has already been found guilty by the Supreme Court. All efforts to deport him from the US were futile. Later, when it was revealed that Karki had taken US citizenship, the US informed Nepal that it would not be able to deport its citizens. Despite being charged in 5 courts in the cooperative fraud case, Malaysia does not want to deport Geetendra Babu (GB) Rai, who has been issued a 'red notice' by Interpol.

With the issuance of an arrest warrant from the court, the Home Ministry is preparing to proceed with the 'red notice' process against the Deuba couple through the police. The department and Home Ministry officials are coordinating with the police on this matter. Deuba is not only a person with a political background, but also a person who has led the government and power several times. On the other hand, since he was a person who suffered a fatal attack during the Gen-G movement on 24 Bhadra, many countries may consider this as 'political' displacement. Therefore, it may not be possible to easily bring Deuba to Nepal.