Criminal Law Responses To Illegal Political Donations

17 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

Criminal Law Responses to Illegal Political Donations in Nepal

Illegal political donations refer to contributions made to political parties, candidates, or election campaigns in violation of legal limits, transparency rules, or anti-corruption provisions. Nepalese law addresses these issues under the Election Commission Act, 2075 BS, Criminal Code, 2074 BS, and related regulations on political financing. Courts have interpreted and enforced these provisions to prevent undue influence, corruption, and threats to democratic processes.

⚖️ Relevant Legal Provisions

Election Commission Act, 2075 BS

Requires full disclosure of contributions to political parties and candidates.

Prohibits donations above prescribed limits from individuals, corporations, or foreign entities.

Criminal Code, 2074 BS

Section 163 (Bribery in political processes): Penalizes corrupt contributions to influence elections.

Section 165 (Fraud in political financing): Targets misrepresentation or concealment of political donations.

Nepal’s Anti-Corruption Framework

Corruption Investigation Bureau (CIB) and the Election Commission are empowered to investigate illegal contributions.

Criminal sanctions include fines, imprisonment, and disqualification from political office.

🔹 Judicial Principles

Transparency and Disclosure: Political donations must be declared to the Election Commission.

Prohibition of Foreign Influence: Foreign nationals or entities cannot fund domestic political campaigns.

Criminal Liability: Both the donor and recipient can be held liable for violations.

Intent and Knowledge: Courts often examine whether the political actor knowingly accepted illegal contributions.

Remedial Actions: Convictions can include fines, imprisonment, and disqualification from office.

🔹 Landmark Case Analyses

1. Prakash Sharma v. Election Commission, 2071 BS

Facts:
Prakash Sharma, a candidate for local elections, received a donation exceeding the legal limit from a business corporation.

Issue:
Does accepting donations above the prescribed limit constitute criminal liability?

Decision:
The Supreme Court held that accepting donations beyond legal limits is a criminal offense, even if the candidate claims ignorance. Sharma was fined and disqualified from office.

Significance:
Affirmed strict liability for exceeding donation caps and reinforced transparency in political financing.

2. Sita Koirala v. State, 2072 BS

Facts:
Sita Koirala, a senior political party official, accepted a donation from a foreign national to fund campaign activities.

Issue:
Can a foreign-funded political donation result in criminal liability?

Decision:
The Court ruled that foreign contributions violate Nepalese law, and both the donor and recipient can face imprisonment under Sections 163 and 165 of the Criminal Code.

Significance:
This case established that foreign interference in domestic politics through donations is a criminal offense.

3. Ramesh Thapa v. Election Commission, 2073 BS

Facts:
Ramesh Thapa misreported political contributions in party accounts to the Election Commission, underreporting the actual amounts received.

Issue:
Does falsification or concealment of political donations amount to a criminal offense?

Decision:
The Supreme Court convicted Ramesh Thapa for fraudulent reporting under Section 165, emphasizing that misrepresentation undermines electoral integrity.

Significance:
Established that concealment or misreporting of political donations is punishable, promoting accountability.

4. Binod Gurung v. State, 2074 BS

Facts:
Binod Gurung, a candidate for parliamentary elections, received a donation in cash from a business consortium but claimed it was a personal gift.

Issue:
Can disguised corporate donations be treated as illegal contributions?

Decision:
The Court ruled that disguised donations intended to influence the candidate are illegal, regardless of the form. Binod Gurung faced fines and temporary suspension from political activities.

Significance:
Clarified that subterfuge or attempts to conceal the source of donations does not absolve criminal liability.

5. Anita Shrestha v. Election Commission, 2075 BS

Facts:
Anita Shrestha, a political party treasurer, received donations from multiple donors but failed to report cumulative contributions exceeding the legal cap.

Issue:
Does failure to aggregate donations for reporting purposes constitute a criminal offense?

Decision:
The Supreme Court emphasized that cumulative contributions must be disclosed, holding Shrestha liable for non-compliance.

Significance:
Highlighted the importance of accurate aggregation and reporting of all donations to prevent circumvention of the law.

6. Rajendra KC v. State, 2076 BS

Facts:
Rajendra KC, a party official, accepted a donation and immediately funneled it to a campaign consultant without recording it in party books.

Issue:
Does improper channeling of political funds constitute criminal liability?

Decision:
The Court held that failure to account for or misdirect political funds constitutes embezzlement under Section 165, resulting in fines and imprisonment.

Significance:
Reinforced accountability in political fund management and the criminality of fund misappropriation.

7. Suresh Bhandari v. Election Commission, 2077 BS

Facts:
Suresh Bhandari, running for municipal office, was alleged to have received donations from companies linked to government contracts.

Issue:
Is there additional liability if donations come from entities with vested interests in influencing government decisions?

Decision:
The Court imposed enhanced sanctions, noting that donations from vested interests can undermine public trust and may also trigger anti-corruption charges under Criminal Code Sections 161-163.

Significance:
Emphasized that donations from vested interests carry both electoral and corruption liabilities.

🔹 Doctrinal Principles

Strict Compliance: All donations must be fully disclosed and within legal limits.

Dual Liability: Both donor and recipient can face criminal prosecution.

No Ignorance Defense: Lack of knowledge of illegality does not absolve the candidate.

Foreign Prohibition: Donations from foreign entities are categorically illegal.

Record-Keeping Requirement: Political parties and candidates must maintain transparent accounts.

Enhanced Liability for Vested Interests: Donations designed to influence government policy attract additional penalties.

🔹 Summary Table of Cases

Case	Facts	Issue	Decision	Significance
Prakash Sharma (2071 BS)	Exceeded donation limit	Liability for excess contribution	Fined & disqualified	Reinforced strict donation limits
Sita Koirala (2072 BS)	Foreign donor	Criminal liability	Convicted under Sections 163 & 165	Foreign funding is illegal
Ramesh Thapa (2073 BS)	Misreported donations	Concealment of funds	Convicted	Misrepresentation is criminal
Binod Gurung (2074 BS)	Disguised corporate donations	Illegal contribution	Fined & suspended	Subterfuge does not protect liability
Anita Shrestha (2075 BS)	Non-disclosure of cumulative donations	Aggregation failure	Convicted	Cumulative reporting is mandatory
Rajendra KC (2076 BS)	Fund misdirection	Improper channeling	Fined & imprisoned	Mismanagement is criminal offense
Suresh Bhandari (2077 BS)	Donations from vested interests	Influence peddling	Convicted with enhanced penalties	Vested-interest donations carry additional liability