Criminal Liability For Fake Government Tenders
Legal Framework in Nepal
Nepal Penal Code 2017 (2074 BS)
Section 210: Fraudulent practices in public procurement or government contracts.
Section 211: Forgery, falsification, or submission of fake documents to government offices.
Section 212: Cheating, deception, or causing loss to public property or government.
Section 213: Conspiracy to commit fraud in public or government contracts.
Public Procurement Act 2063 BS
Mandates transparency and fairness in government tenders.
Violations such as submitting fake tenders or collusion are criminal offenses.
Constitution of Nepal 2015
Article 51: Obligation of state bodies to ensure accountability and transparency.
Anti-Corruption Act 2063 BS
Criminalizes corruption, including manipulation of tenders and contracts.
1. Case: Kathmandu Fake Tender Case (2016)
Facts:
A construction company submitted fake documents claiming experience and capital to win a government road project tender.
Investigation revealed the company had no prior experience and falsified bank guarantees.
Legal Proceedings:
Case filed under Sections 210, 211, and 212 of Penal Code and Public Procurement Act.
Court examined submitted documents, bank statements, and witness testimonies.
Outcome:
Company and managing director convicted.
Sentences: 3 years imprisonment for managing director, fine for the company.
Tender canceled, and project reissued.
Significance:
Highlighted criminal liability of both individuals and companies for fake tenders.
Reinforced the importance of document verification in government projects.
2. Case: Biratnagar Supply Tender Fraud Case (2017)
Facts:
A supplier submitted fake product certifications to secure a government supply contract.
Auditors discovered the certificates were forged.
Legal Proceedings:
Charges under Sections 211–213 of Penal Code and Anti-Corruption Act.
Evidence included expert verification of documents and cross-checks with issuing authorities.
Outcome:
Director of the company sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.
Company fined and blacklisted from government contracts for 5 years.
Significance:
Demonstrated that both document forgery and conspiracy to commit fraud are punishable.
Set precedent for blacklisting companies committing tender fraud.
3. Case: Pokhara Road Construction Tender Fraud (2018)
Facts:
Two construction companies colluded to submit fake bids to manipulate tender selection.
Both companies submitted inflated cost estimates to eliminate competition.
Legal Proceedings:
Case filed under Sections 210, 213 of Penal Code and Public Procurement Act.
Investigation involved analyzing tender bids and communication records.
Outcome:
Both companies and managing directors convicted.
Sentences: 3–5 years imprisonment; fines imposed; companies banned from public contracts for 3 years.
Significance:
Emphasized criminal liability for collusion and conspiracy in tenders.
Reinforced transparency in bidding processes.
4. Case: Lalitpur Water Supply Tender Forgery Case (2019)
Facts:
A contractor submitted forged approval letters from government engineers to win a water supply contract.
Letters were examined and proved fake by forensic analysis.
Legal Proceedings:
Case filed under Sections 211, 212, and 213 of Penal Code.
Court verified letters, cross-checked with government engineers, and conducted forensic examination.
Outcome:
Contractor convicted; sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.
Company fined and banned from submitting government tenders for 5 years.
Significance:
Highlighted liability for falsifying approvals to secure government contracts.
Reinforced the use of forensic evidence in tender fraud cases.
5. Case: Sunsari Education Department Tender Scam (2020)
Facts:
Private vendors submitted fake educational material certifications to win a government school supply contract.
Materials delivered did not meet specifications.
Legal Proceedings:
Charges under Sections 210–212 Penal Code and Anti-Corruption Act.
Investigation involved material testing, document verification, and witness testimonies.
Outcome:
Three directors convicted; sentences: 3–6 years imprisonment.
Company fined and ordered to compensate the government for losses.
Significance:
Demonstrated criminal liability not only for fake documents but also for delivering substandard products.
Showed the government’s legal ability to reclaim losses.
6. Case: Rautahat Public Infrastructure Tender Fraud (2021)
Facts:
A consortium of companies submitted fake experience certificates to win a government infrastructure project.
Investigation revealed collusion between company managers.
Legal Proceedings:
Case filed under Sections 210–213 Penal Code, Public Procurement Act, and Anti-Corruption Act.
Court reviewed all submitted documentation and interviewed government officials.
Outcome:
Four company directors convicted; sentences: 4–7 years imprisonment.
Companies blacklisted and fines imposed.
Significance:
Reinforced accountability for collective fraud by consortiums.
Highlighted need for stringent government tender evaluation.
Summary of Observations
Who is liable:
Individual directors/managers, companies, and consortium members.
Common offenses:
Submission of fake documents (experience, financial guarantees, certifications)
Collusion between companies to manipulate bids
Delivery of substandard goods/services after winning tenders
Relevant laws:
Penal Code Sections 210–213
Public Procurement Act 2063 BS
Anti-Corruption Act 2063 BS
Punishments:
Imprisonment (3–7 years)
Fines for companies and directors
Blacklisting from government contracts
Compensation for government losses
Key takeaway:
Nepalese law treats fake government tenders as serious criminal offenses.
Both individuals and companies are criminally liable.
Courts rely on forensic evidence, document verification, and testimony to secure convictions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments