‘We Distinguish Between Legal and Illegal Assets; Others Can Investigate Based on Our Report,’ Says Property Investigation Commission Chair

It has been nearly two months since the government formed a Judicial Commission to investigate the assets of those who have held public office since 1991 BS (1934 AD). The commission has recently extended by one month the deadline initially set for individuals who held public office from 2006 BS (1949 AD) onwards to submit their asset details.

The commission has collected asset details from around 3,500 individuals during this period, with some submissions still arriving via email awaiting processing. Rajendra Kumar Bhandari, Chair of the Commission and former Supreme Court Justice, disclosed that the commission is now set to begin scrutiny of the submitted asset reports. Below are edited excerpts from an interview conducted by Krishna Gyawali with Chair Bhandari regarding the commission’s activities:

What work has the Property Investigation Commission initiated in the past one and a half months?

It’s been a month and a half since we began. After taking the oath, we first organized our office operations. Staff members have been arriving rapidly. We issued public notices informing everyone to submit their asset declarations.

Submissions have been ongoing, with approximately 3,500 individuals filing their information so far. We have also received data through email and nearly 100 complaints. It is estimated that about 30,000 to 40,000 employees and public officials fall within the commission’s scope of inquiry, and we have collected data from roughly 10% of them. How will the commission handle this volume?

Our estimate is that about 40,000 people will need to submit declarations. We understand that complications such as revealing the sources of assets have caused delays for some. Some individuals are abroad and complain they do not have time to return soon. We have recently given a final extension until the end of Ashad (mid-July). We expect a swift increase in submissions now. The commission has seen higher footfall in recent days, and people are submitting their declarations at the earliest opportunity.

The former Justices Forum, of which you are a member, concluded that former Supreme Court Justices should be exempt from submitting asset declarations. What are your thoughts on this?

No official communication has been received from the former Justices Forum. However, according to the commission’s mandate, both former Chief Justices and retired Justices are required to submit asset declarations.

Former Justices argue that only impeached or removed judges should disclose assets, not all of them. What is the commission’s stance on this?

The mandate does not differentiate between impeachment or retirement status. It explicitly requires all former justices, including former Chief Justices, to submit declarations. The term ‘removed’ applies differently in other bodies. Being a former justice means one must file the required forms. Former judges from the Supreme Court down to district level judges have already completed their forms with due diligence.

Public officials must submit asset statements within 35 days by the end of Ashad. Now former justices must also comply. How do the processes differ?

There is a difference. The form for others is distinct from ours. We require a detailed 12-page declaration which includes information on all family members. Because we are conducting investigations, accurate family details are necessary.

Knowing who the family members are makes investigation easier. Declarants must show the source of their assets and supporting documents. They may need to visit libraries to verify salary records or investment offices to collect land transaction documents. Supporting evidence from insurance providers, the Citizen Investment Trust, and other institutions might also be required. Gathering such documentation understandably takes time.

Previously, annual asset submissions did not require proof of sources. Now that you must separate legal from illegal assets, what additional documentation is requested?

Legal assets remain legal. However, undeclared income, unpaid taxes or fees, or assets acquired from illegal sources are deemed unlawful. Therefore, we request proof of income sources.

Everyone who has served in public office, whether political figures or staff, must complete the commission’s form at least once. Even unpaid or honorary advisors, including those advising the Prime Minister, are required to submit asset declarations.

Those who worked from 1991 BS to around 2007/08 BS (1964/65 AD) must submit forms covering both periods simultaneously. They will be required to provide documents revealing the source of assets. If the source remains unclear, the assets will not be considered legal.

Out of the one year tenure, two months have been spent in data collection. Can the remaining work be completed comfortably? We digitize the received data and create templates for review. If manpower is insufficient, we will request additional experts. After initial investigation, we will identify challenges and plan accordingly.

Time is a concern, but we are progressing with the investigation. In the next one to two months, we will assess how long the process will take and the manpower needed. We aim to complete the work within the mandate period. If needed, we might request an extension, though there is currently no desire to extend.

Though salaries are comparable, employees’ habits of saving and investing differ. The Anti-Corruption Commission has set 70 percent of savings as a benchmark. On what basis will your commission establish standards?

This is not like the Royal Commission, which conducted investigations, pursued cases, and issued verdicts. Our commission is only for investigative purposes and does not conduct trials; it prepares reports.

These reports are submitted to the Prime Minister’s office, which forwards them to relevant agencies such as the Anti-Corruption Commission or the Department of Money Laundering Investigation. The standards set by the Anti-Corruption Commission are practical and are what we refer to.

It is rumored that the report of the investigation commission led by former Justice Bhairav Lamsal formed 25 years ago is being sought. Has that report been found or are you still searching?

We are actively searching and have made requests, but the report has not been found yet.

If it is not found…

We remain hopeful that it will be located.

You have the mandate to submit phased reports on public officials’ asset inquiries. Which group will you start with?

We will decide on the methodology—alphabetically, by registration number, or by another approach—after discussion.

Asset investigations are complex. When the Lamsal commission began in 2002 BS, it was said that people tried to conceal assets or make illegal assets appear legal. What have you observed in two months of work?

Nepal lacks a scientific system for record-keeping. Other countries use social security numbers to access all records; we do not have such a system.

Land valuation committees set minimum prices, but actual market values vary. Prices differ depending on whether a property is roadside or situated behind.

We review asset sources including purchases, sales, inheritance, and salary income. Without proof, assets can be classified as illegal or unlawful. Additional investigation may require requests for different forms or evidentiary documents.

Some former prime ministers have remarked that if a house is destroyed by fire, it cannot be investigated. How does the commission respond?

We have received no such information. We do not consider external rumors as evidence. Only documents officially received by the commission are accepted as valid.

What happens if someone refuses to appear after giving a statement?

The law will take its course. Whatever the law prescribes will be enforced.