Jan 30, Kathmandu - The main objective of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is to prevent attempts to legalize assets acquired from serious national and international crimes through the legal system.

According to the spirit of this Act and international norms, “illicit origin” means assets derived from crimes that pose a direct threat to the security of the state, society and international community, not just ordinary criminal activities. Therefore, if the source of any asset is not illegal, it cannot be subject to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

In the Nepali legal system, the Penal Code, the Law on Fraud and other special laws are already in place to control acts such as theft, robbery, fraud, extortion, and murder. It is neither legally nor judicially appropriate to link those crimes with the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. If that is done, there is a risk that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act will deviate from its original purpose and become an umbrella law that covers all crimes.

According to international practice and the Financial Action Task Force standards, illicit origin refers to assets obtained from serious crimes such as drug trafficking, illegal arms trafficking, human trafficking, terrorism, and organized international crime. Since assets acquired from such crimes cannot be used directly, money laundering is the process of making them legitimate by turning them around, layering them, or using various means. In this sense, the charge of money laundering is not automatically established until the illicit origin is proven.

In this context, it is not wrong to call the money laundering charge against Ravi Lamichhane a “fake prosecution.” If the source of the alleged assets is not linked to serious international or national organized crime, then forcibly bringing it under the ambit of money laundering is an abuse of the law. The law should be used to control crime, not as a weapon to rot in prison. If it is made a weapon to suppress opponents in political competition, it will become even more of a threat to democracy.

What is more serious is that the use of harsh laws like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act can also affect individual freedom, political competition, and freedom of expression. If the state apparatus starts using such laws arbitrarily, it will open the way for any dissenting voice to be suppressed and imprisoned on charges of illicit origin. This is a very dangerous practice in a democratic system.

For this reason, Attorney General Savita Bhandari Baral has introduced a courageous lawyer by deciding to withdraw the additional prosecution in the case of Ravi Lamichhane. This is the right step for her legally and institutionally. Taking a prosecution amendment does not mean legitimizing the crime, but rather showing judicial discretion by admitting that the wrong law was used. It is an important aspect of the rule of law for the prosecution to know its own limits. If citizens are being treated unfairly due to the actions of yesterday's rulers in a biased manner, it is not politeness and civilization to sit idly by.

Rather, the courts should also address such issues in a timely manner. Judges should not shy away. There should be no fear of pressure or popularity. Justice should be delivered on the basis of law and evidence. The court should send a clear message that the Money Laundering Act is for serious crimes, not for political or personal vendetta. If the court can provide a clear explanation and set a precedent, such fake prosecutions will automatically decrease in the future.

Ultimately, the power of the law lies in its impartial application. Harsh laws used with wrong intentions do not control crime, but create distrust in the state. Therefore, limiting the Money Laundering Act to its original purpose and prosecuting the real criminals, not the innocent, is the just and democratic way.