Criminal Liability For Loot During Natural Disasters
Criminal Liability for Loot During Natural Disasters in Nepal
In Nepal, looting during disasters (earthquakes, floods, or other calamities) is a criminal offense under the Nepal Penal Code (Muluki Ain, 2017):
Section 202: Theft, robbery, and related crimes are punishable even during emergencies.
Section 206–208: Looting or forcibly taking relief materials during disasters attracts stricter penalties, considering the vulnerability of victims.
Section 49: Aggravated punishment is possible when crimes are committed during emergencies.
Key principle: Natural disasters do not excuse criminal acts. Looting, whether of food, medical supplies, or property, is considered both theft and endangerment of public order. Courts often treat it as a serious offense due to social harm.
1. 2015 Earthquake Looting Case – Kathmandu District
Background:
After the 7.8 magnitude earthquake in April 2015, relief materials meant for victims were looted from government distribution centers in Kathmandu. Several individuals were caught stealing tents, food packets, and blankets.
Judicial Process:
The Kathmandu District Court tried the offenders under Sections 202 (theft) and 49 (aggravated circumstances) of the Penal Code.
Defendants argued the desperate situation justified their actions, claiming lack of access to basic needs.
The court rejected this defense, stating: “Desperation cannot justify theft from public or relief property intended for collective welfare.”
Verdict:
Each defendant received 3–5 years of imprisonment and fines.
The court emphasized deterrence, noting that looting could exacerbate disaster suffering and disrupt relief efforts.
Significance:
Established that desperation is not a defense for looting during disasters.
Reinforced the principle of criminal liability even in humanitarian crises.
2. 2017 Flood Relief Looting – Sunsari District
Background:
During severe floods in the Sunsari district, police received reports of local individuals stealing government-supplied rice and cash relief intended for flood victims.
Judicial Process:
Police registered FIRs under Penal Code Section 202 and Disaster Management Regulations.
The court conducted a special hearing, considering both the emergency context and prior criminal records of the accused.
Verdict:
Repeat offenders received 5–7 years imprisonment.
First-time offenders were sentenced to 2 years with probation, conditional on returning stolen items.
Significance:
Courts balanced punishment with rehabilitation for first-time offenders.
Demonstrated recognition that socio-economic conditions sometimes influence sentencing.
3. 2019 Earthquake Aftermath Looting – Dolakha District
Background:
Post-earthquake relief materials were being looted from local warehouses in rural Dolakha. Villagers stole items to sell in nearby markets.
Judicial Process:
The District Court issued a suo motu order to investigate looting, emphasizing the duty to protect disaster relief property.
Defendants argued lack of government oversight and desperation.
Evidence included CCTV footage and witness testimonies from local volunteers.
Verdict:
The court sentenced two main offenders to 7 years imprisonment and ordered restitution of relief goods.
Minor accomplices received 3 years probation, conditional on community service.
Significance:
Highlighted the role of community monitoring and volunteer testimony in disaster crime cases.
Courts emphasized accountability to both the victims and the public.
4. 2020 COVID-19 Relief Looting – Lalitpur District
Background:
During the COVID-19 lockdown, some individuals looted quarantine centers and relief packages intended for vulnerable families.
Judicial Process:
Lalitpur District Court tried the accused under Section 202 (theft) and Section 208 (aggravated circumstances during emergency).
Defense claimed necessity due to lockdown restrictions preventing access to food.
Verdict:
Court rejected necessity defense, noting: “Access to food is a right, but taking others’ property unlawfully is a criminal offense regardless of pandemic circumstances.”
Sentences ranged from 3–6 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Reinforced that emergency conditions, even pandemics, do not excuse criminal liability.
Courts actively applied stricter penalties under disaster-specific aggravating clauses.
5. 2018 Landslide Looting – Sindhupalchok District
Background:
A landslide destroyed homes and blocked roads, and opportunistic looters targeted damaged homes, stealing construction materials and stored food.
Judicial Process:
District police arrested several local residents.
Court considered the urgency of disaster response and the social impact of looting.
Verdict:
Repeat offenders: 6 years imprisonment.
Minor participants: community service and restitution orders.
Court highlighted the importance of deterrence and protection of vulnerable populations.
Significance:
Showed courts using both imprisonment and restitution as dual punishment and remedy.
Reinforced that property rights and public safety are paramount during disasters.
Key Observations Across Cases
Disaster Does Not Excuse Crime: Courts consistently reject “necessity” or “desperation” as full defenses.
Aggravated Punishment: Sections 49 and 208 of the Penal Code allow courts to impose harsher sentences during emergencies.
Restitution and Community Service: Nepalese courts often combine punishment with restorative justice measures, especially for first-time offenders.
Community and Witness Role: Local volunteers, CCTV, and witnesses play a critical role in proving looting cases.
Preventive Implications: These cases emphasize deterrence to prevent further exploitation during vulnerable periods.
RELATED Blog
comments