Research On Financial Inclusion, Exploitation And Penal Law In Nepal
Financial Inclusion in Nepal
Financial inclusion refers to ensuring that individuals and businesses, especially the underserved and vulnerable populations, have access to useful, affordable, and timely financial products and services such as banking, credit, insurance, and payment systems.
Legal Framework
Constitution of Nepal, 2015
Article 33 guarantees the right to property, which includes access to financial resources.
Article 35 (right to social justice) indirectly supports financial inclusion by protecting against economic exploitation.
Bank and Financial Institution Act (BAFIA), 2063 (2006)
Regulates banks and financial institutions in Nepal.
Mandates protection of clients’ rights and prohibits fraudulent practices.
Nepal Rastra Bank Directives
Directives to promote financial literacy and inclusive banking for marginalized communities.
Penal Code, 2017 (2074 BS)
Sections 366, 367, 384, 406, 408: Criminalize financial exploitation, fraud, misappropriation, and embezzlement.
Financial Exploitation and Criminal Enforcement
Financial exploitation in Nepal can take many forms:
Banking fraud (loans without collateral, Ponzi schemes)
Misappropriation by financial institutions
Usurious practices
Coercion or exploitation of vulnerable populations
Cyberfinancial crimes
Criminal enforcement is governed mainly by the Penal Code and regulations by Nepal Rastra Bank. Both individuals and institutional officers can be held liable.
Case Laws on Financial Inclusion and Exploitation
Here are five significant cases in Nepal:
1. Nepal Bank Employees’ Embezzlement Case (Supreme Court, 2065 BS / 2008 AD)
Facts: Bank employees misappropriated deposits from multiple clients in a local bank branch.
Issue: Criminal liability for embezzlement and protection of depositors’ financial rights.
Decision: The Supreme Court held the employees criminally liable under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 409 (misappropriation by public servant) of the Penal Code.
Significance: Reinforced criminal accountability of bank staff in protecting depositors’ rights.
2. Microfinance Exploitation Case, Rural Bank v. Villagers (Supreme Court, 2068 BS / 2011 AD)
Facts: A microfinance institution charged excessive interest to poor villagers, violating the regulatory limit.
Issue: Protection of marginalized communities under financial inclusion policies.
Decision: The Court directed the bank to refund excess interest and highlighted that exploiting the economically weak violates financial inclusion principles and constitutes fraud.
Significance: Emphasized regulatory enforcement to prevent exploitation of vulnerable groups.
3. Cooperative Loan Fraud Case, Kathmandu (Supreme Court, 2070 BS / 2013 AD)
Facts: Cooperative management misused deposited funds for personal benefit.
Issue: Liability under criminal law for financial mismanagement and breach of fiduciary duty.
Decision: Court convicted cooperative officers under Sections 406 and 409 of Penal Code and ordered full restitution to members.
Significance: Established precedence that cooperatives must comply with fiduciary duties under criminal scrutiny.
4. Digital Banking Scam Case (Supreme Court, 2072 BS / 2015 AD)
Facts: An online banking fraud stole funds from hundreds of clients’ accounts via phishing.
Issue: Criminal liability for cyber-enabled financial exploitation.
Decision: Court held perpetrators liable under Sections 419 (cheating by personation), 420 (cheating), and 468 (forgery) of Penal Code.
Significance: Set a benchmark for prosecuting cyberfinancial crimes and protecting digital financial inclusion.
5. Unregulated Loan Shark Case (Supreme Court, 2074 BS / 2017 AD)
Facts: Informal lenders charged extremely high interest rates to poor borrowers, coercing repayment.
Issue: Protection of borrowers’ rights and criminal liability for exploitation.
Decision: Court ruled that lending at extortionate rates constitutes criminal exploitation under Sections 384 and 386 of Penal Code, and lenders were fined and jailed.
Significance: Reinforced the principle that financial inclusion requires protection from predatory lending.
Key Observations
Financial inclusion is both a policy objective and a constitutional right.
Criminal enforcement targets fraud, misappropriation, usury, and cybercrime to protect public access to financial services.
Courts have consistently protected vulnerable populations from exploitation while emphasizing accountability of institutions and individuals.
Penal law provisions provide a strong legal basis for prosecution in cases of financial abuse.
RELATED Blog
0 comments