Kathmandu. The Nepal Can Move Pvt. Ltd. (NCM) case, which has reached court on charges of concealing transactions and evading revenue, has reached a new and more serious phase.

The Revenue Investigation Department has filed a case alleging that there is a discrepancy of more than Rs 780 million between the company's digital portal and the sales details submitted to the tax office. A complaint has been filed with the Money Laundering Investigation Department with suspicion that cash was withdrawn from NCM and deposited into another company's account while the investigation is ongoing, and that the account and the company itself were closed after the money was distributed.

With this, the NCM case has become a multifaceted issue that is not limited to the issue of revenue leakage, but also involves the possible transfer of funds, the legality of company ownership, managerial responsibility, the security of the seller's COD amount, and the future of thousands of employees.

At the same time, after the government introduced a system of exemption from fines and low additional fees for tax arrears, another policy question has also arisen - can the same nature of facility be provided to taxpayers who have not been able to pay taxes due to business crises and companies facing criminal charges for planned revenue leakage?

1.69 billion on the portal, 910 million in sales bills
According to the investigation of the Revenue Investigation Department, service sales worth 1.69 billion 69 million 74 thousand 449 rupees were seen on the digital portal operated by NCM. However, the sales details submitted to the Inland Revenue Office mentioned only 910 million 41 million 27 thousand 682 rupees.

Thus, the department claims that there is a difference of 780 million 28 million 46 thousand 767 rupees between the company's internal digital system and sales bills.

On this basis, the department has filed a case related to revenue leakage, fixing the amount of 1.36 billion 88 million 11 thousand 520 rupees including tax, interest and fines. Since the case is pending in court, the department's charges are yet to be finally confirmed.

The department has also alleged that the company operated and controlled its digital transaction system from abroad and manually billed for less than the actual sales. If this claim is confirmed, serious questions will be raised about the data control of digital businesses operating in Nepal, the use of foreign servers, and the access of the tax administration.

Suspicion that money went to ‘Yati Mandu’ during the investigation

In the complaint filed with the Money Laundering Investigation Department, it is alleged that a large amount of cash was withdrawn from NCM and deposited repeatedly in Yeti Mandu’s bank account at the same time as the revenue investigation intensified. It is claimed that the money was then sent to various places and the bank account was closed within a short time and the company was also taken into liquidation.

According to the complaint, the relevant account was in the Tinkune branch of Siddhartha Bank and was closed on June 27, 2025.

The fact that cash was deposited in another company connected to the person concerned from the company under the scope of the revenue investigation, the account was closed after the money flow, and the company itself went into liquidation may be a serious indication from the point of view of the investigation. But the official investigation is yet to reveal how much money was deposited by whom, where it was sent and who the ultimate beneficiary is.

The complaint has demanded an investigation into the source, destination and actual beneficiary of the money linked to it, considering revenue leakage as a possible precursor. The mere filing of a complaint does not prove that money laundering has occurred; its confirmation must be through investigation and judicial process by the competent authority.

According to sources, Raju Timilsina is the finance chief of NCM, as mentioned in the Revenue Investigation Department report and court documents. However, what role he or any other person had in Yeti Mandu's account remains to be independently confirmed.

The public company details list Ganga Bahadur Thapa as the CEO of NCM. On the other hand, Sujit Acharya is said to be identified as the Group CEO. This raises questions about how the authority for financial and managerial decisions was formally divided between the CEO, the Group CEO and the CFO.

The complaint also claims that Sujit Acharya, who is identified as the Group CEO, is not in touch. The complaint states that he is an Australian citizen and the brother of the company's majority shareholder, Sudip Acharya. These details and his current status are yet to be formally confirmed by the relevant authorities.

More than 71 percent ownership out of touch

According to the company details, Sudeep Acharya owns 55 percent of NCM and Jeevan Gyawali owns 16.33 percent. Both have a combined ownership of 71.33 percent.

According to sources related to the investigation, both have been living in Australia. It is mentioned that the Revenue Investigation Department has tried to contact them during the case process, but has not been able to make them appear.

The Lalitpur District Court had issued a 15-day public notice through the national daily after the company, Nepal Can Group Pvt. Ltd. and the addresses of the defendants including Sudeep Acharya, Jeevan Gyawali, Mithu Poudel and others did not respond to the deadline. The notice stated that the case would proceed as per the law if they did not appear within the stipulated time.

A clear answer to the question of why the majority shareholders of the company, which does business worth billions of rupees, did not appear in the court process and who is making the strategic and financial decisions of the company in their absence has not been made public.

Ownership in the old citizenship even after acquiring foreign citizenship? Another sensitive aspect of the case is related to the citizenship of the shareholder and the legality of company ownership.

If the majority shareholders are Australian citizens, what is the legal status of their Nepali citizenship? What citizenship and legal status is the ownership of the company based on? If the investment is made as a foreign citizen, has it been approved under the prevailing laws on foreign investment?

These questions should be answered by examining official records by the Office of the Registrar of Companies, the Department of Industries and the relevant government agencies. Since living abroad and being a foreign citizen are not the same, conclusions regarding citizenship cannot be drawn without certified documents. However, a formal investigation of the questions raised in the complaint seems necessary.

The risk of getting the benefit of tax concessions becoming a ‘fraud discount’. It is natural for the government to give taxpayers who are in genuine business distress an opportunity to settle their arrears. In times of sluggish markets, increased debt pressure or deteriorating cash flow, penalty waivers and installments can revive businesses.

But even a company that has systematically concealed its transactions, filed false statements, or is facing criminal charges of revenue evasion, if granted relief similar to a normal tax arrears, could set a wrong precedent.

If such a facility is implemented without investigation, the message among taxpayers may be ‘first conceal transactions, then settle accounts by paying a limited amount after being investigated’. In such a case, there is a risk that tax relief will not be a tool for real business revival but will become a ‘fraud discount’ for alleged financial irregularities.

Therefore, it seems that the government should not put the general situation of not being able to pay taxes, administrative errors, disputed tax assessments, and allegations of systematic revenue evasion in the same category. The government needs to clarify whether the proposed relief will apply to pending criminal revenue cases or not.

Multi-pronged investigation Be required

In the NCM case, the Revenue Investigation Department alone may not be enough. A coordinated investigation between various agencies is needed to fairly resolve the complaints and questions raised in public.

The Money Laundering Investigation Department will have to identify the source, transfer and beneficiary of the money. The Financial Intelligence Unit of Nepal Rastra Bank may have to examine the details of suspicious transactions. The concerned bank will have to provide KYC, transaction history, person depositing cash and the basis for closing the account.

Similarly, the Office of the Registrar of Companies will have to look into the share ownership, board of directors, legality of the company's operation and its relationship with the company that is said to have been dissolved. The Department of Industries will have to examine possible foreign ownership and the status of necessary approvals.

The NCM case now demands answers to five straightforward questions—how did the transaction gap of more than Rs 780 million come about? Did the money go to another company during the investigation? What is the actual legal status of the majority ownership? Where and how is the COD amount of crores of rupees per day safe? And will a company with a pending case in court get the proposed tax concession or not?

The answers to these questions should come from evidence-based research and formal responses from the relevant agencies, not from allegations or speculation. But as the regulatory body’s silence continues, this issue will not be limited to a single company’s tax dispute; it could undermine Nepal’s digital transactions, tax administration, corporate governance, and the trust in the money of thousands of small business owners.

Efforts to get an official response from the NCM were unsuccessful. If official responses are received from the companies or individuals named in the allegations, they should also be considered with equal priority.

- News Source : https://bisalnepal.com/news/36764