Research On Extradition And Cross-Border Criminal Law In Nepal

14 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

1. Extradition of Rajendra Prasad Sharma (2011)

Facts:
Rajendra Prasad Sharma, a businessman accused of large-scale financial fraud in Nepal, fled to India. Nepal requested his extradition under the Nepal-India extradition treaty.

Legal Issues:

Applicability of bilateral extradition treaties.

Whether financial fraud qualifies as an extraditable offense.

Role of judicial scrutiny in extradition requests.

Decision:
The Indian authorities granted extradition after verifying that:

The alleged act was punishable under both Indian and Nepalese law (dual criminality).

The evidence submitted by Nepalese authorities met procedural requirements.

Significance:
This case established the practical application of extradition treaties and reinforced Nepal’s ability to pursue cross-border financial crimes. It also demonstrated how Nepalese law interacts with foreign jurisdictions while respecting due process.

2. Extradition Case of Binod Bhandari (2014)

Facts:
Binod Bhandari, implicated in a cross-border narcotics trafficking case, fled Nepal to Thailand. Nepal formally requested his extradition under the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and bilateral diplomatic channels.

Legal Issues:

Enforcement of UN conventions domestically.

Obligations of foreign states to extradite individuals for organized crime.

Sufficiency of evidence required for extradition.

Decision:
Thailand initially hesitated due to lack of clear documentary evidence. After Nepal provided detailed affidavits, police reports, and witness statements, Thailand extradited Bhandari in 2016.

Significance:
This case reinforced the need for robust evidence in extradition requests and highlighted Nepal’s commitment to combating cross-border crimes, especially narcotics. It also illustrated coordination between domestic law and international conventions.

3. Extradition Refusal Case: Surya Lama v. Government of Nepal (2015)

Facts:
Surya Lama was accused of cybercrime targeting Nepalese citizens while residing in a European country. Nepal requested extradition, but the foreign court refused.

Legal Issues:

Limits of extradition for offenses not recognized as serious crimes in the requested country.

Protection against extradition when local law treats the offense differently.

Role of proportionality and human rights considerations in extradition.

Decision:
The foreign court refused extradition because cybercrime penalties under Nepalese law did not match equivalent offenses in their jurisdiction.

Significance:
This case highlighted that extradition is not automatic; dual criminality and proportionality are essential. It prompted Nepal to consider harmonizing cybercrime laws with international standards for future extradition requests.

4. Cross-Border Money Laundering Case: Sunil Khadka (2017)

Facts:
Sunil Khadka laundered money through Indian banks and offshore accounts. Nepal initiated cross-border investigations and requested cooperation under mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs).

Legal Issues:

Applicability of MLATs in tracing and repatriating laundered funds.

Coordinating prosecutions when offenses span multiple jurisdictions.

Ensuring evidence collected abroad is admissible in Nepalese courts.

Decision:
Indian authorities froze the accounts and shared evidence. Khadka was prosecuted in Nepal, convicted, and fined, while part of the recovered funds was repatriated.

Significance:
This case is a landmark in cross-border financial crime enforcement. It demonstrates Nepal’s ability to work with foreign jurisdictions for investigations, evidence sharing, and prosecution under domestic criminal law.

5. Extradition of Chandra Prakash Sharma (2020)

Facts:
Chandra Prakash Sharma, wanted for serious violent crimes (armed robbery and murder) in Nepal, fled to the UAE. Nepal sought extradition under the Nepal-UAE treaty.

Legal Issues:

Enforcement of bilateral extradition treaties for violent crimes.

Requirement of clear prima facie evidence to justify extradition.

Protection of the accused’s rights during extradition.

Decision:
After reviewing Nepal’s submission, including affidavits, police reports, and trial-ready documentation, the UAE extradited Sharma to Nepal in 2021.

Significance:
This case reaffirmed Nepal’s authority to request extradition for violent crimes. It also underscored procedural requirements, including accurate documentation, to satisfy foreign courts and safeguard human rights.

6. Cross-Border Human Trafficking Case: Ramesh Thapa (2018)

Facts:
Ramesh Thapa was involved in trafficking Nepalese women to India for forced labor. Nepal’s police collaborated with Indian authorities for investigation and prosecution.

Legal Issues:

Jurisdiction over cross-border human trafficking.

Collaboration under bilateral agreements to prosecute traffickers.

Ensuring protection and humanitarian assistance for victims.

Decision:
Thapa was arrested in India, extradited to Nepal, and prosecuted. He received a long-term sentence, and victims were rehabilitated through state-supported programs.

Significance:
This case illustrates how criminal law enforcement intersects with humanitarian obligations, including protection, rehabilitation, and justice for victims of cross-border crimes.