Money laundering probe widens around ex-chief justice Rana

What happened in the latest raids, and whose homes and electronic devices were searched?

The latest raids expanded an investigation beyond former chief justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana. Officials searched the homes of his brother, Prabhu Shumsher Rana, former High Court judges Nawaraj Thapaliya and Dipak Timilsina, and Nabin Raj Basnet. The searches matter because investigators suspect a wider network tried to influence legal proceedings and help businessman Deepak Bhatta secure release.

Investigators collected documents and checked electronic devices during the searches. They said Prabhu Rana and Basnet had already been under investigation for several months. Thapaliya and Timilsina came under scrutiny more recently, after investigators examined the activities of alleged intermediary Inam Sapkota.

The raids do not establish guilt. They are evidence-gathering steps in a broader inquiry involving money laundering, possible judicial influence and contacts with senior officials. Investigators will assess the documents, devices and phone evidence to determine whether the people searched were directly connected to the alleged network or linked to other cases.

Who are Cholendra Shumsher Rana, Deepak Bhatta and Inam Sapkota, and how are they connected in the allegations?

Cholendra Shumsher Rana is Nepal’s former chief justice. Deepak Bhatta is a controversial businessman held in cases involving money laundering, corruption and banking offences. Inam Sapkota is described as an intermediary who allegedly connected people around the effort to influence Bhatta’s court matters.

Investigators say Bhatta’s lawyers challenged his detention at the Supreme Court after he was remanded by the Special Court and then the Patan High Court. They allege that efforts to secure his release intensified afterward. According to an investigating officer, Rana and Bhatta did not communicate directly. Instead, a family member allegedly called Sapkota, who reported information to Rana.

These are allegations under investigation, not established findings. Sapkota’s questioning helped investigators identify more contacts, including people linked to courts, police and government offices. His phone, documents and other electronic evidence may show whether the alleged communications involved influence, leaked information or other misconduct.

What does it mean to allege that someone tried to influence a court case, and what actions are investigators examining here?

To allege an attempt to influence a court case is to suspect that people used access, pressure, information or intermediaries to affect how a legal matter was handled. It does not prove that a court decision was changed or that anyone committed a crime. The concern is whether normal judicial procedures were improperly manipulated.

In this case, investigators are examining an alleged effort to secure Bhatta’s release after his detention was challenged at the Supreme Court. They are studying claims that a family member contacted Sapkota, who then reported to former chief justice Rana. They are also examining the alleged roles of former judges Thapaliya and Timilsina and Basnet.

Investigators are checking documents, electronic devices and phone records for evidence. They want to know whether contacts were used to influence proceedings, obtain or leak confidential information, or misuse access to senior state officials. The article does not report a final finding against any person.

How broad is the investigation in terms of people, government institutions and alleged offences involved?

The investigation is broad in both people and institutions. It includes former chief justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana, his brother Prabhu Shumsher Rana, former High Court judges Nawaraj Thapaliya and Dipak Timilsina, Nabin Raj Basnet, businessman Deepak Bhatta and intermediary Inam Sapkota. Senior police and Armed Police Force officials also appear in the inquiry.

Several institutions are involved. The Department of Money Laundering Investigation is leading the wider probe, while police and the Special Bureau handled Sapkota’s detention. The Home Ministry suspended Armed Police Force AIG Banshiraj Dahal and formed a committee led by AIG Anjani Kumar Pokharel. Courts mentioned include the Special Court, Patan High Court and Supreme Court.

The alleged offences and concerns include money laundering, corruption, banking offences, judicial influence, indecent behaviour, leaking sensitive security information and misuse of official contacts. Investigators are still determining which people are directly connected and whether the alleged network reaches further.

What could happen to the court cases, public officials and Nepal’s justice system if confidential information or judicial access was misused?

Misused judicial access or confidential information could affect more than one investigation. If evidence showed that people tried to influence Bhatta’s detention or release, courts and prosecutors might need to examine whether proceedings were conducted fairly. Officials found to have leaked sensitive information or breached conduct could face suspension, disciplinary action or further legal investigation.

The article gives one concrete consequence already: Armed Police Force AIG Banshiraj Dahal was suspended after allegedly visiting Rana at a police office without permission. The Home Ministry cited leaking sensitive security information and acting against conduct rules. Investigators are also reviewing contacts between Sapkota and senior Nepal Police officials.

The wider impact would depend on evidence and official findings. Proven interference could weaken public trust in courts and raise questions about equal treatment in cases involving powerful people. It could also prompt closer oversight of officials’ contacts and handling of confidential information. At present, investigators are still determining whether contacts went beyond acquaintance and whether information was misused.

How can an intermediary such as Sapkota allegedly connect people who do not communicate directly, and why would investigators examine his phone contacts?

An intermediary connects separate sides by receiving information from one person and passing it to another. This can make a relationship appear indirect while still allowing requests, updates or proposed actions to move between people. Investigators therefore study the intermediary’s role, communications and contacts rather than relying only on direct calls between the main figures.

The article says former chief justice Rana and Bhatta did not communicate directly. An investigating officer alleged that a family member called Sapkota, and Sapkota reported everything to Rana. Sapkota’s questioning also helped investigators identify a wider network involving judges, Basnet and senior security officials.

Analysis of Sapkota’s mobile phone showed contacts with other senior police officials. Some allegedly asked him to meet, while others stayed in regular contact. Contact alone is not proof of wrongdoing. Investigators want to determine whether confidential information was shared, whether officials used their access improperly, or whether the relationships were only professional acquaintances.

What is money laundering, and why do investigators trace financial misconduct and political or official connections when examining it?

Money laundering generally means processing money linked to unlawful activity to hide its origin, ownership or movement and make it appear legitimate. Investigators follow financial records, assets, transactions and relationships to identify where money came from and who benefited. This definition comes from established legal and investigative practice; the article does not provide a separate definition.

The case illustrates why wider connections matter. Bhatta was under a detailed money-laundering investigation and was placed on an immigration watchlist amid allegations that he used political and bureaucratic connections to influence contracts, licences and regulatory decisions. Prosecutors later filed multiple cases involving him and other business figures over alleged financial misconduct.

Investigators are now examining whether contacts around Rana, Sapkota, judges and officials were connected to those financial allegations or to a separate attempt to secure Bhatta’s release. Documents, electronic devices and phone records may help trace money, access and decision-making. The article does not report a final determination about laundering or any connected offence.

Key Facts:

📌 Officials searched five homes connected to the widening investigation.

📌 Documents and electronic devices were collected or examined.

📌 The searches followed scrutiny of intermediary Inam Sapkota.

📌 Rana is the former chief justice named in the investigation.

📌 Bhatta is being held in money-laundering, corruption and banking cases.

📌 Investigators describe Sapkota as an alleged intermediary.

📌 The probe began with an alleged attempt to secure Bhatta’s release.