Rabi Lamichhane’s Lawyers: GB Rai is Solely Accountable for the Fraud

January 7, 2025
Rabi Lamichhane’s Lawyers: GB Rai is Solely Accountable for the Fraud

The defense argument for Rabi Lamichhane, Chairman of the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), who has been detained in connection with the embezzlement of funds from Suryadarshan Cooperative, has begun. Three lawyers representing Lamichhane argued in the bench of Justice Nitij Rai at the Kaski District Court.

Former Attorney General Raman Shrestha, along with senior advocates Sushil Pant and Surendra Thapa, presented arguments on his behalf. A total of 17 lawyers have registered to plead in Lamichhane’s defense, and the hearing will continue tomorrow.

All three lawyers who argued on Monday claimed that the embezzlement and fraud related to the cooperative funds were entirely committed by GB Rai, who should be held accountable. “The three of us emphasized that all the fraud, malpractice, and embezzlement of cooperative funds were carried out by GB Rai. He should be the one held responsible. Rabi cannot be implicated in this,” one of the participating lawyers stated.

They also urged the court to return the depositors’ money by selling assets from Gorkha Media, where the cooperative’s funds were reportedly spent. “Even after accounting for depreciation, Gorkha Media Network Pvt. Ltd. still has assets worth over NPR 440 million. If the government intends to repay the depositors, selling these assets should suffice,” argued advocate Raman Shrestha.

He further accused the parliament of exceeding its authority. “This case was filed due to the parliament exercising powers it doesn’t possess and pressuring the government prosecutor. There is no legal basis for this case,” he claimed. “They are filing one case after another against Rabi to make his life difficult.”

Advocate Sushil Pant questioned the seizure of land acquired through inheritance in 1996 (2053 BS). He argued that the case, registered with malicious intent, should be dismissed.

“How can they claim that land inherited in 1996 should be seized, alleging it was acquired illegally? It is not reasonable to seize inherited property. The government’s actions in this case clearly reflect malice. This case must be dismissed,” he concluded.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.