Attorney General opens settlement route in cases where organised-crime charges fail

Nepal’s Attorney General’s Office has opened a limited route for settling some criminal charges within cases that also involved organised crime. The circular does not make organised crime compoundable. Instead, it separates charges and allows only offences that the law already permits parties to settle. The change matters because earlier guidelines were unclear when one case included both compoundable and non-compoundable offences.

For example, a defendant may face fraud and organised-crime charges. If the court upholds the fraud charge but rejects the organised-crime allegation, the fraud charge may later be settled if legally eligible. The organised-crime ruling must become final first, meaning all appeals must end. A government prosecutor must request the settlement, and the court must approve it.

The route covers cooperative fraud, other fraud, cheque dishonour, unlawful lending, criminal breach of trust causing financial loss, arson, vandalism, public-property damage, contract-related offences, and foreign-employment offences. Officials say it may help victims recover money sooner. Former judges warn discretion could enable pressure or misuse.

A compoundable offence is a crime that the law allows the accused and victim to resolve by agreement, subject to the required legal process. In this article, those offences may be settled when the victim consents and a court approves the request. This can help victims recover money without waiting years for a criminal case to finish. It does not mean every private agreement automatically ends a prosecution.

A non-compoundable offence is treated differently. The parties cannot privately settle it and terminate the criminal case. The court must decide the charge through the criminal process. Organised crime is an example in this framework: the revised guidelines specifically do not make it compoundable. If it is linked to another eligible offence, only that other offence may be considered for settlement.

The distinction matters because one case can contain both types of charges. The circular allows separation, but it requires the organised-crime ruling to become final before another eligible charge is settled. This limits the route while preserving lawful settlements.

Nepal’s organised-crime charge applies when three or more people act together in an organised way to commit a qualifying offence. The main offence must be punishable by more than three years in prison. Both conditions matter: the alleged conduct must involve an organised group, and the underlying offence must pass the punishment threshold.

The organised-crime allegation is linked to the main offence rather than replacing it. If prosecutors bring both charges, they may seek an additional sentence equal to one and a half times the punishment for the main offence. For instance, an organised group accused of a sufficiently serious fraud could face the underlying fraud charge plus the organised-crime allegation.

The circular does not permit settlement of the organised-crime charge itself, regardless of whether another charge can be settled. If the court rejects that allegation, the rejection must become final after all appeals end. Only then may another legally eligible offence in the same case be considered for settlement.

A failed organised-crime charge is not enough by itself. The court must reject the allegation, and the ruling must become final. That means every available appeal concerning the organised-crime charge must already be exhausted. The rule prevents a separate settlement from moving ahead while the serious linked allegation remains under challenge.

Suppose a defendant is charged with fraud and organised crime. If the court upholds the fraud charge but dismisses organised crime, the fraud charge may be eligible for settlement. However, the parties must wait until the decision rejecting organised crime is final. A government prosecutor then submits the settlement request, and the court decides whether to approve it.

This timing is central to the Attorney General’s clarification. It separates charges without allowing the organised-crime allegation to be privately resolved. Officials say the approach removes confusion in mixed-charge cases. Former judges remain concerned that prosecutors’ discretion could create opportunities for pressure or legal loopholes if the process is not carefully monitored.

When a court approves a partial settlement, the legally eligible offence is resolved through agreement rather than continuing as an ordinary criminal proceeding. The case can then be concluded for that offence. The organised-crime charge is not included, because the circular does not permit that charge to be settled. Its rejection must already be final before the partial settlement proceeds.

For the accused, the approved settlement ends the eligible charge through the authorised process. For the victim, it may provide a faster route to recover money, especially in cooperative, banking, or other financial cases. Dinesh Prasad Ghimire said victims should not have to wait years when the law permits settlement. A government prosecutor must submit the request, and the court must approve it.

The outcome does not erase the distinction between charges. Serious organised crime remains subject to court decisions, while only permitted offences are resolved by agreement. Former justice Balram KC warned that victims could face pressure or coercion and that accused people might exploit legal loopholes.

The circular delegates settlement authority to the heads of relevant government attorney offices. They can facilitate a request when the offence is legally eligible and the case meets the circular’s conditions. A government prosecutor must then submit the request to the court. The settlement becomes effective only if the court approves it, so prosecutors do not have the final word.

This creates discretion at several stages. Officials must decide whether a charge qualifies, whether the organised-crime ruling is final, and whether seeking settlement is appropriate. In a mixed case, they may separate an eligible offence from the non-compoundable organised-crime allegation. The court must then review the proposed resolution before the case ends.

The article reports concerns that this flexibility could be misused. Former judges warn that accused people might exploit legal loopholes, while victims could be pressured or coerced into agreement. Unequal treatment is also a risk if officials handle similar cases differently. Monitoring application may show whether the circular needs revision or suspension.

Criminal systems may allow settlement for certain offences because the victim’s loss can sometimes be repaired through agreement, such as repayment in a financial case. The article describes this as a way to help victims recover money without waiting years for proceedings. A court still oversees the process, so settlement is not simply an informal private deal.

Other offences are treated as matters affecting the public, not only the individual victim. The article places organised crime in this category because it involves serious offences committed by several people and can operate on a large scale. Even if parties agree, the organised-crime charge cannot be settled under the circular. Courts must determine such charges using evidence and facts.

This distinction creates a balance between practical recovery and public accountability. The new route permits settlement only for offences the law identifies as eligible. Former justice Balram KC warns that extending settlement too broadly could expose victims to coercion and allow accused people to exploit legal loopholes. Courts and authorities must therefore remain alert.