Pokhara Airport scam: Ex-minister, Chinese firm charged in ₹3.62B corruption case
Synopsis
Key Takeaways
Nepal's anti-corruption authority on Thursday, 7 May filed a fresh corruption case at the Special Court in Kathmandu against former finance minister Gyanendra Bahadur Karki, current and former senior government officials, Chinese contractor China CAMC Engineering Co., Ltd., and its top executives over alleged financial irregularities during the construction of Pokhara International Airport in western Nepal. The case, filed by the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA), marks the fourth such corruption filing related to the multi-million-dollar project over the past one and a half years.
Key Charges and Accused
The CIAA has charged a total of 11 public officials, including former finance minister Gyanendra Bahadur Karki, several former government secretaries, joint secretaries, and other officials. Karki becomes the sixth former minister to be named as a defendant in the Pokhara airport corruption scam. Earlier, former ministers Bhim Acharya, Ram Kumar Shrestha, Dipak Amatya, Ram Sharan Mahat, and Post Bahadur Bogati — who has since passed away — had also been charged.
On the contractor's side, China CAMC Engineering Co., Ltd. Chairman Wang Bo and Project Manager Yang Zhigang have been charged with assisting public officials in committing corruption, making this one of the few instances in Nepal where a foreign company and its executives have been directly indicted in a corruption case.
The Alleged Corruption Mechanism
According to the CIAA, public officials and the Chinese contractor allegedly colluded to illegally grant tax and customs exemptions to China CAMC Engineering Co., Ltd. in direct violation of the original procurement agreement. The anti-graft body stated that the commercial contract signed between the Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal (CAAN) and the Chinese firm had already incorporated taxes, customs duties, and other fees within the contract price, legally obligating the contractor to bear those payments under Nepali law.
However, the CIAA alleged that an additional implementation agreement was subsequently introduced to exempt the company from those payments — effectively allowing it to receive what the authority described as a