KATHMANDU, May 19: The investigation into businessman Deepak Bhatta and Sulav Agrawal—currently in the custody of the Department of Money Laundering Investigation (DoMLI)—has slowed significantly, with authorities still unable to establish the source of their investments nearly 50 days after their arrest.
Officials say the probe has been hampered as several companies linked to the duo have yet to submit the requested shareholding and financial details.
The DoMLI had sought founding shareholder records from eight insurance companies connected to the suspects: Bikash Nepal Micro Insurance Company Limited, Guardian Micro Life Insurance, Crest Micro Life Insurance, Liberty Micro Life Insurance, Protective Insurance Company, Star Micro Insurance Company, Trust Micro Insurance Company, and Himalayan Reinsurance.
The department had specifically requested details of payments made during the establishment of these companies, including premium amounts collected from various individuals and institutions over and above paid-up capital, along with full banking details—such as account holders’ names, account numbers, and the respective banks and financial institutions involved. The notice had given a 15-day deadline for submission of the information to assist the investigation.
However, officials say the companies have ignored the directive, and the required documents have not yet been submitted. According to a department official, none of the companies has complied so far.
The notice, published on April 30, 2026, required submission of details within the stipulated deadline, which expired two days ago.
NVC requests public officials and employees to submit property...
Bhatta was arrested on April 2, 2026, and has been held for investigation under provisions of the Money Laundering Prevention Act, 2008, which allows detention for up to 90 days for investigative purposes.
According to DoMLI Information Officer Uttam Kumar Ghimire, the investigation is being conducted under Sections 17 and 22 of the Act. Section 17 outlines provisions related to arrest, while Section 22 defines the timeline and procedures for filing cases.
Despite parallel investigations by DoMLI and the Central Investigation Bureau (CIB) of Nepal Police, progress has been limited as several individuals linked to the case remain at large.
The Securities Board of Nepal (SEBON) has already completed a separate investigation into their securities transactions and submitted a report, concluding that serious irregularities were found in the trading activities of Bhatta and Agrawal. It has recommended to conduct further investigation by both the department and the CIB.
Authorities suspect irregularities in the so-called “pre-IPO” fundraising practices used by insurance companies before issuing their primary shares. Instead of raising funds transparently through IPOs, companies allegedly collected money in advance through informal arrangements, often at prices above face value.
Investigators say such practices allow shares to be sold at inflated prices, with excess funds often deposited into the accounts of brokers or intermediaries rather than the companies themselves, raising concerns over financial manipulation and abuse.
A CIB investigator said the practice indicates possible misconduct under the guise of pre-IPO fundraising.
Officials also confirmed that financial records of the companies have been requested for deeper analysis.
Despite repeated warnings from SEBON against such practices, pre-IPO fundraising continues in various forms across the market.
Meanwhile, several individuals linked to similar transactions—including Indian national Upendra Hirawat, businessman Rajbahadur Shah, Rohit Gupta, Crest Micro Life Insurance chairman Rishiraj Mor, and others—are reportedly absconding, further complicating the investigation.
Guardian Micro Life Insurance refuses to provide share details
In a related development, Guardian Micro Life Insurance Limited has refused to provide details of its IPO allotment and shareholding structure in response to an information request.
A journalist had submitted a formal request on May 13, 2026, seeking details about share investments in the company. However, on May 15, 2026, the company rejected the request.
The company cited Article 28 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to privacy, and Sections 10(1) and 11(1) of the Privacy Act 2018, arguing that such financial records cannot be disclosed publicly.
It stated that “securities or related details of any individual cannot be disclosed to others,” requesting compliance with the legal provisions.
At the same time, the company referred to Section 5 of the Right to Information Act 2007, stating that it had already published necessary public information but declined to share the specific details requested.
The denial has sparked renewed debate over transparency, given that thousands of public shareholders are involved and the matter is of significant public interest.
