Attorney General Sabita Bhandari has been found to have bypassed both law and procedure while deciding to amend the charges against Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) President Rabi Lamichhane in a way that withdraws his money laundering and organized crime cases.
Bhandari on January 14 decided to grant approval to the District Government Attorney's Office in Kaski to amend the indictment by maintaining the cooperative fraud charge while removing the claims of money laundering and organized crime. She stated that she made this decision according to Section 36 of the National Criminal Procedure Code, 2017. However, the National Criminal Procedure Code legally prohibits the withdrawal of money laundering cases.
Section 116 (2)(a) of the said law states that cases involving fake passports or citizenship, immigration, corruption, human trafficking and transportation, drug trafficking or trade, illegal hunting and trade of wildlife, poisoning of public consumption goods, murder committed by using poison or in a cruel or inhuman manner or by taking under control, and cases related to protection of ancient monuments, and money laundering cannot be withdrawn.
After those in government began arbitrarily withdrawing cases against various accused individuals, the Supreme Court issued an order to withdraw cases only after establishing criteria. Subsequently, Section 116 of the Code clearly stipulated which types of cases can and cannot be withdrawn. The law includes a negative list of cases that cannot be withdrawn, and money laundering falls within that negative list.
Section 36, cited by Attorney General Bhandari while granting approval, mentions that if additional evidence is found in a case already filed in court, the initial claim or demand can be amended. This section provides that the government attorney concerned can file an application in court after obtaining approval from the attorney general.
If such an application is received and its details seem reasonable, the court may issue an order to amend the claim. Legal experts argue that Attorney General Bhandari cannot use Section 36 of the same law to withdraw Lamichhane's case, which falls under the negative list established by Section 116 of the Code. They claim that Section 36 is applicable only to cases that do not fall under the negative list.
We spoke with three lawyers regarding this matter. Senior Advocate Tika Ram Bhattarai stated that Section 36 was used in a roundabout way to evade the clear law that prohibits the withdrawal of money laundering cases. "Since the law prohibits the withdrawal of money laundering cases, the term 'indictment amendment' has been used cleverly instead of the word 'withdrawal,'" he said. "If amended according to the approval given by the attorney general, the outcome for those cases is equivalent to a withdrawal."
Recalling the legal principle that what cannot be done directly by law cannot be done indirectly either, he said the attorney general's decision is contrary to this and was made in a way to deceive the court. He also stated that Section 36 was designed for adding charges. "If an unnecessary charge has been filed, the court itself will speak on it; there is no need to seek an indictment amendment for that," he said. "This section is meant for adding charges if additional evidence is found."
Another advocate also mentioned that since cases like money laundering cannot be withdrawn, the approval for amendment appears to have been given as a workaround. "Looking at the attorney general's decision, approval has been granted to amend the indictment so that money laundering and organized crime charges are withdrawn," he said. "The attorney general has essentially taken over the jurisdiction of the government. Withdrawing a case that the government cannot legally withdraw by using the section for indictment amendment is a very poor act."
According to him, even if the attorney general were to grant approval for an indictment amendment, she should have spoken clearly about whether the crime had not occurred at all or whether this person was not involved in the crime that occurred.
"The indictment mentions that money coming from the cooperative into Rabi Lamichhane's personal account and the account of Gorkha Media, where he was a partner, was an attempt at money laundering by transferring it to another account," he said. "One must be able to say that according to new evidence, these are Rabi Lamichhane's legitimate sources and therefore the indictment needs to be amended. The attorney general has not been able to say that."
Senior Advocate Tulsi Bhatta stated that the attorney general favored Lamichhane. "My understanding is that the current government adopted this method to favor Rabi Lamichhane. The law prohibits withdrawing money laundering cases, but if the government wants, it can find any sort of workaround," he said. "Once this indictment is filed, only the court can grant an acquittal after looking at the evidence. Someone granting immunity in the middle of the process after the indictment has reached the court ill behoves the rule of law."
An employee at the Office of the Attorney General stated that staff had given both verbal and written opinions and suggestions to Bhandari not to make the decision to approve the amendment of Lamichhane's case. Attorney General Bhandari granted approval to go to court to remove the claims of money laundering and organized crime against Lamichhane, setting aside the advice given by the deputy attorneys general and joint attorneys general under her.
Lamichhane had submitted an application to amend his cases on December 9, 2025. In the application, he demanded the removal of money laundering and organized crime claims, citing as evidence a self-declaration by a complainant stating 'I did not file a complaint against Rabi Lamichhane' and the parliamentary committee report stating 'Rabi Lamichhane did not take the cooperative depositors' money but spent it.'
Officials at the Office of the Attorney General had explained to Bhandari that the evidence submitted by Lamichhane while seeking the amendment was not related to the money laundering charges against him. They argued that it would have been one thing if Lamichhane had submitted evidence that the money coming into his or his company's account was legally sourced, but he had failed to do even that.
They also asserted that the statement "so-and-so did not file a complaint against me" has no relevance to a money laundering case. "In the case of a crime that the law itself says cannot be withdrawn, whatever new evidence comes to light, the accused should present that evidence in court," said an official from the office of the Attorney General. Thus, contrary to the verbal and written opinions of her own junior officials, Bhandari personally granted approval to amend the indictment claims so that Lamichhane's cases would be withdrawn.
We called Attorney General Bhandari to ask why she granted approval for an amendment that withdraws Lamichhane's cases in violation of the law. Despite repeated calls, she did not pick up. We then texted questions to her via SMS and WhatsApp, but she did not respond to those either.
Bhandari cited three grounds while deciding to grant approval to the districts of Kaski, Kathmandu, Chitwan, and Rupandehi to file applications for amendment to remove the organized crime and money laundering cases against Lamichhane.
First, a written self-declaration by a complainant stating "I did not file a complaint against Rabi Lamichhane."
Second, the conclusion of the Parliamentary Investigation Committee, which stated: "Although no documents or evidence were found to confirm Rabi Lamichhane's involvement in the entire process of funds coming from the cooperative to Gorkha Media Pvt Ltd, his participation is seen in the operational expenditure process of those funds once they reached Gorkha Media."
Third, the argument that since victims came to complain that they want nothing if their money is returned, removing the two charges against Rabi Lamichhane would open the door for reconciliation by returning the money in the cooperative fraud case.
"Prioritizing the rights and interests of the victim depositors, in the cases where Rabi Lamichhane is a defendant... it has been decided to grant approval to amend the indictment under Section 36 of the National Criminal Procedure Code, 2017, such that the charges of fraud and cooperative fraud as maintained elsewhere will remain, while the claims of organized crime and money laundering will not be maintained in his case," Bhandari's decision states.
