KATHMANDU: Rashmi Pant, the former Chief Business Officer of Prabhu Bank Limited, has denied her involvement in the case concerning the misuse of a loan disbursed for the construction of a five-star resort in Rupandehi. In her statement given to the Nepal Police’s Central Investigation Bureau (CIB), Pant claimed that as mentioned in the loan appraisal note, the funds were disbursed from the borrower’s account to the proposed landowner’s account for the purpose of purchasing land.
She maintained that the loan was not misused and that the entire process regarding loan approval and fund disbursement was conducted in accordance with the bank’s prevailing policies, rules, and credit guidelines. Her statement asserts that even if any provision of the bank was inadvertently unfulfilled, it should be addressed under Nepal Rastra Bank directives rather than as an offense under the Banking Offenses and Punishment Act.
According to Pant, since the concerned borrower remains responsible for transactions that occurred after the funds were deposited into the proposed landowner’s account, the land kept as collateral for the loan is still under a direct freeze (Thado Rokka).
She stated that she worked within the framework of the bank’s policies and rules, credit policy, guidelines, code of conduct, and her official responsibilities. “I did not work under the influence of the borrower, nor did I take any financial benefit, donation, or gift. I performed my work in accordance with my responsibilities and rules,” Pant said in her statement. Here is Pant’s statement given to the CIB:
I do not have any personal acquaintance or transactions with Shishir Poudyal, the former chairman of Asian Village Resort Pvt. Ltd., and Shashidhar Sharma, the current chairman. I came to know Shashidhar Sharma when he visited the head office regarding the loan. I have no partnership or collective investment with them.
As the ‘Chief Business Officer’ of Prabhu Bank Ltd., my main responsibilities included finding ‘business’ for the bank, specially searching for potential ‘customers’, holding meetings, bringing ‘customers’ into the ‘credit chain’ after discussions, coordinating with branches regarding loans and ‘digital sales’, and ensuring loans were regularized, among other tasks and responsibilities.
While serving as the ‘Chief Business Officer’, the authority to approve loans would change from time to time based on the decisions of the Chief Executive Officer. At the final stage, I had the authority to approve loans up to a maximum of NPR 500,000,000/- (Fifty Crore).
Loans raised from branches would come through the branch ‘Relationship Manager’ to the branch manager and then to the provincial head. Through the provincial head, they were submitted to the Chief Executive Officer via the head office ‘Risk Analyst’, ‘Credit Manager’, ‘Chief Credit Officer’, and ‘Chief Business Officer’. If within the approval limit of the Chief Executive Officer, it was approved by the Chief Executive Officer; if it exceeded the Chief Executive Officer’s approval limit, it was submitted to the Board of Directors.
Loans initiated from head office ‘departments’ were raised by the ‘Relationship Manager’ of the respective ‘department’, passing through the departmental head, ‘Risk Analyst’, ‘Credit Manager’, ‘Country Head Retail Loan’, ‘Chief Credit Officer’, and ‘Chief Business Officer’ to the Chief Executive Officer. Loans exceeding the Chief Executive Officer’s approval limit were approved by the Board of Directors.
The person initiating the loan would perform an ‘analysis’ of the loan, and if deemed appropriate to grant the loan, would collect necessary documents, initiate the required process, and send it to the branch manager or departmental head. The departmental head would ‘review’ it and approve it if within their authority or forward it if outside their approval limit.
The ‘Risk Analyst’ and ‘Credit Manager’ would note the ‘risks’ in the loan file and suggest collecting documents if any were missing. The ‘Chief Credit Manager’ would ‘review’, give necessary directions to the branch or ‘department’, request missing documents, and ‘monitor’ the ‘business’.
I am currently not certain what other loans were disbursed in the name of Shashidhar Sharma and companies belonging to his group, apart from the Bridge Gap Loan (BGL) of NPR 130,000,000/- (Thirteen Crore) and the term loan of NPR 480,000,000/- (Forty-Eight Crore) disbursed by Prabhu Bank Ltd. to Asian Village Resort Pvt. Ltd. (former chairman Shishir Poudyal) on 13/10/2023.
The signature in the loan appraisal (‘Credit Appraisal’) prepared by Prabhu Bank Ltd. on 04/12/2024 to disburse the term loan of NPR 480,000,000/- (Forty-Eight Crore) in the name of Asian Village Resort Pvt. Ltd., reading ‘Chief Business Officer Rashmi Pant’, is my own. I inspected, recognized, and verified it.
The loan file for the term loan of NPR 480,000,000/- (Forty-Eight Crore) disbursed in the name of Asian Village Resort Pvt. Ltd. originated from the Manigram branch of Prabhu Bank Ltd. That loan file was initiated by Manigram branch ‘Relationship Manager’ Rajendra Shrestha, recommended by branch manager Santosh Gyawali, reviewed and ‘supported’ by head office ‘Risk Analyst’ Anjan Sharma and ‘Credit Manager’ Shailendra Dangol, sent to provincial head Dipendra Babu Bista, ‘supported’ by Dipendra Babu Bista and sent to ‘Chief Credit Officer’ Rhywash Shrestha, ‘supported’ by Rhywash Shrestha and sent to me, and after I ‘supported’ it as ‘Chief Business Officer’ and forwarded it to the Chief Executive Officer, it was approved by the Chief Executive Officer.
The term loan of NPR 480,000,000/- (Forty-Eight Crore) disbursed in the name of Asian Village Resort Pvt. Ltd. was provided for the purpose of purchasing land required for the construction of a resort for Asian Village Resort in Mayadevi Rural Municipality-4, Rupandehi.
In that loan, some lands in the name of Asian Village Resort Pvt. Ltd. were kept under mortgage restriction in the bank’s name. Shishir Poudyal had executed a covenant stating that the lands would be restricted in the bank’s name after they were transferred to Asian Village Resort Pvt. Ltd. Besides that, other collaterals for security were mortgaged in the bank’s name. There was also his personal guarantee.
Later, when the land was not mortgaged in the bank’s name in time according to the covenant, the bank secured the loan by placing a direct restriction (Thado Rokka). As a long time has passed, I do not remember now what and how it was mentioned regarding how and to whom the funds against the loan were to be disbursed. Since the task of ‘disbursement’ of funds did not fall under my responsibilities, I did not know.
The loan appraisal (‘Credit Appraisal’) prepared for the disbursement of the term loan of NPR 480,000,000/- (Forty-Eight Crore) to Asian Village Resort Pvt. Ltd. mentioned that ‘pre-disbursement’ would be done to purchase land in the name of Asian Village Resort Pvt. Ltd. I ‘supported’ all the points indicated in the loan appraisal and recommended it for approval.
The matters pointed out in that loan appraisal are adopted and implemented even after loan approval, and if there are any ‘deviations’, the respective branch or department proposes accordingly and implements it with the approval of the authorized official.
Manigram branch ‘Relationship Manager’ Rajendra Shrestha proposed it via email dated 12/02/2025, which I, as Chief Business Officer, ‘supported’ and the bank’s then Chief Executive Officer approved.
Although the previously approved loan appraisal mentioned that the term loan would be disbursed/released only after the lands coming into the name of Asian Village Resort Pvt. Ltd. after purchase were mortgaged in the bank’s name, it was decided that for the present, only 50 percent of the ‘fair market value’ of the land remaining as collateral prior to mortgage restriction in the bank’s name would be ‘pre-disbursed’.
Since the loan had already been approved for Asian Village Resort Pvt. Ltd. to purchase land, the borrower had requested advance payment for land purchase, and the respective branch had also requested accordingly, I ‘supported’ the email and submitted it to the Chief Executive Officer, stating that the borrower would purchase land from that amount and mortgage it to the bank.
Since the borrower’s loan file originated from the Manigram branch and the borrower’s ‘project’ was also in the same area, it was requested to transfer that loan file from the head office ‘Project Financing Department’ to the bank’s Manigram branch.
Regarding providing approval for the release/disbursement of a new term loan even though the tenure of the borrower’s currently overdue NPR 13 crore ‘Bridge Gap Loan’ had crossed, the ‘Bridge Gap Loan’ was being pursued, and since the project would collapse and even the previous ‘Bridge Gap Loan’ would go bad if that term loan was not disbursed, I ‘supported’ that proposal.
I saw the email proposed via email on 12/02/2025 by Manigram branch ‘Relationship Manager’ Rajendra Shrestha, ‘supported’ by me in the capacity of Chief Business Officer, and approved by the bank’s then Chief Executive Officer. The signature reading ‘Supported By’ in that email is my own. I inspected, recognized, and verified it. Furthermore, the signature reading ‘Approved By’ in that email belongs to then Chief Executive Officer Ashok Sherchan.
Asian Village Resort Pvt. Ltd. had requested a loan stating it would purchase land for a resort, funds were required to purchase that land, and after requesting that upon disbursement of those funds, the land would be brought in the name of Asian Village Resort Pvt. Ltd. and mortgaged to the bank, the respective branch requested via email accordingly. Thereafter, that amount was ‘disbursed’ to bring the land in the borrower’s name and mortgage it to the bank.
The ‘Relationship Manager’ (Loan Officer) of the Manigram branch of Prabhu Bank Limited addressed branch manager Santosh Gyawali on 10/03/2025, and branch manager Santosh Gyawali addressed me, the Chief Business Officer, stating that out of the approved NPR 48 crore, NPR 31 crore had already been disbursed/released, and as per the current application, since the borrower had made an agreement (baina kagaj) with the landowner for purchasing the proposed land, they requested/recommended approval to disburse/release the remaining NPR 17 crore loan to the borrower.
Since a request came from the respective branch to disburse funds to give to the landowner, that amount was disbursed with the understanding that the amount would be given to the landowner, the land would be brought in the borrower’s name, and it would be mortgaged to the bank.
The previously disbursed amount of NPR 31 crore was also used by Shashidhar Sharma for purchasing land. We do not have information about where that amount went after purchasing that land. I saw the copy of the above-mentioned email written by Manigram branch manager Santosh Gyawali addressing me, Chief Business Officer Rashmi Pant, on 10/03/2025. Among the signatures in that email, the signature on the left is my own, while the signature on the right belongs to then Chief Executive Officer Ashok Sherchan. I inspected, recognized, and verified it.
Since the concerned owner had transferred and brought the company, and company owner Shashidhar Sharma after the transfer submitted a decision of the company’s board of directors to the bank stating he would regularize the loan taken from the bank, the bank approved it via email.
Additionally, since the borrower transferred the company without the bank’s knowledge, it was verbally requested repeatedly to transfer that loan to another bank.
Since the Chief Executive Officer has been delegated the authority to alter and implement minor matters under the directives of Nepal Rastra Bank in situations where some partial matters in any bank policies and rules are not fulfilled, I ‘supported’ that ‘pre-disbursement’ within the bank’s rules and policies, and the Chief Executive Officer approved it.
‘CMS (Credit Management System)’ is the software introduced by the bank for ‘credit processing’. At that time, it was not fully operational. Large loan files were ‘processed’ ‘manually/physically’ rather than through ‘CMS (Credit Management System)’. For that reason, the ‘pre-disbursement’ of that loan also came via email.
This matter is mentioned under ‘Waiver, Review, Repeal and savings’ of the Credit Policy Guidelines of Prabhu Bank Ltd. In the mentioned loan, it was stated that the lands kept for security would be mortgaged in the bank’s name. However, since the land was not transferred in the borrower’s name even by the prescribed timeframe, the bank placed a direct restriction (Thado Rokka) on the above-mentioned plots for security.
That loan was not given solely on the basis of a direct restriction. After loan approval, the loan file went to the respective Manigram branch, and the Manigram branch performed the work of keeping it restricted, so I am not certain about that.
The reason why the above-mentioned lands were neither mortgaged nor directly restricted is that some lands from the name of Shashidhar Sharma were subdivided and went to the name of borrower Asian Village Resort, and the lands that went to the name of the borrower had already been directly restricted.
The lands in the name of Butwal Housing Pvt. Ltd. were not restricted because the head office would not release them immediately as they were restricted from the head office for an old loan. Those lands remained restricted from the head office as long as I worked at the bank.
According to the bank’s ‘credit policy’, in conditions where collateral was not restricted, the limit of the amount for ‘pre-disbursement’ in a manner that it would be supported by subsequent restriction depended on the loan approval limit of the official authorized to approve the loan. In the case of a loan where only a direct restriction needs to be kept when there is no other collateral, it is permissible to disburse only up to NPR 10,000,000/- (Ten Lakh).
As mentioned in the loan facility proposal letter (‘Offer Letter’) proposed on 04/10/2081 and accepted by the borrower on 02/11/2081, the loan facility proposal letter (‘Offer Letter’) was amended to keep the company’s lands under direct restriction for collateral security because the borrower could not bring the land in the company’s name and mortgage it in the bank’s name.
At that time, since the Land Revenue Office did not place a direct restriction solely on the bank’s request, the amendment was made to keep the restriction in the bank’s name through the company’s letter. Since I left the bank from the month of Mangsir of 2082, I do not have information regarding that. That loan was disbursed according to the bank’s policies and rules. Until I left the bank, the borrower was paying the loan installments.
The term loan of NPR 48,00,00,000/- (Forty-Eight Crore) disbursed in the name of Asian Village Resort Pvt. Ltd. was disbursed remaining under the credit policy of Prabhu Bank. I do not know on what basis the committee formed by Nepal Rastra Bank clarified that ‘pre-disbursement’ cannot be done in that loan.
The bank’s ‘Collateral Management Manual, 2016 (Third Amendment, 2024)’ also mentions provisions that if lands remaining as collateral due to any special reason cannot be mortgaged in the bank’s name without keeping a mortgage restriction, ‘pre-disbursement’ can be done prior to the mortgage.
Furthermore, under ‘Waiver, Review, Repeal and savings’ of the Credit Policy Guidelines of Prabhu Bank Ltd., since authority was provided to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the Chief Executive Officer can grant exemptions and changes, I ‘supported’ it and submitted it to the Chief Executive Officer, and ‘pre-disbursement’ was done by the Chief Executive Officer remaining within their approval limit.
The loan file of NPR 48 crore for the term loan was sent to the Manigram branch because the ‘site’ of Asian Village Resort Pvt. Ltd. was convenient from the Manigram branch, easy for ‘business visits’, it was a nearby branch keeping informed about the ‘site’s’ progress, and since the borrower was also local, their ‘profile’ was also known.
I have not given pressure to ‘forward’ the file. I have not pressured the branch manager and ‘relationship manager’ of the Manigram branch to remove all ‘comments’ on 10 March 2024, put a ‘CMS number’, and email for the second ‘pre-disbursement’.
I asked branch manager Santosh Gyawali whether the lands to be kept as collateral regarding that ‘project’ were restricted or not, what the reason for not restricting was, when they would be restricted, and whether there was a discussion with the borrower about this. I did not pressure him to ‘forward’ that email.
I have not given any urging or direction to the Manigram branch to send an email regarding the ‘pre-disbursement’ of that loan.
When I was Chief Business Officer i.e., ‘CBO’, only one assistant employee used to remain in my office. They only used to do filing and organizing ‘data’. They did not coordinate with branch offices. I have now forgotten the name of the employee working at that time.
I do not know whether urging or direction was given from the ‘CEO’s office’ or not. 10/12 employees were working in the ‘CEO’s office’. The borrower Asian Village Resort Pvt. Ltd., as per the loan proposal letter and loan appraisal, transferred funds from the borrower’s accounts to the accounts of persons having family relations with them, whose lands were going to be purchased for resort construction.
The responsibility regarding those funds being subsequently transferred to various accounts rests with the concerned borrower.
The responsibility of monitoring and inspecting whether the loan amount was misused or not lies with the respective branch and the respective province. If necessary, employees of the head office ‘Risk Department’ also used to go for inspection. The ‘Business Site Visit Report (BSVR)’ is normally supposed to be done by the respective branch every three months. However, due to work arrangements, circumstances beyond control, etc., it used to be done late.
Loans must not be misused, and if a loan is misused, action will be taken according to law. However, in the case of the present loan, according to the loan appraisal, the funds went from the borrower’s account to the proposed landowner’s account for the purpose of purchasing land. For that reason, the loan amount was not misused.
The concerned borrower alone remains responsible for transactions that occurred after the funds went to the proposed landowner’s account.
That loan appraisal was raised under the bank’s ‘credit policy’ and approved in accordance with the rules. In a loan requested for the purpose of purchasing land, ‘pre-disbursement’ was done specifically to purchase land by the Chief Executive Officer remaining within the powers given by the ‘credit policy’.
Since the ‘pre-disbursed’ amount went from the borrower’s account to the proposed landowner’s account mentioned in the loan appraisal and loan proposal letter, that loan was not disbursed illegally.
Regarding proposing and approving via ’email’ without using ‘CMS’, additional ‘approvals’/information for such large loan files were not communicated through ‘CMS’. Since additional ‘approvals’/information were to be done through the bank’s official email, the present approval was also done via email.
In the case of the present loan, according to the loan appraisal, the funds went from the borrower’s account to the proposed landowner’s account for the purpose of purchasing land. For that reason, the loan amount was not misused.
The work of approving and disbursing that loan was done according to the bank’s prevailing policies and rules. If any provisions were inadvertently not adopted, it should have been under Nepal Rastra Bank directives rather than under the Banking Offenses and Punishment Act.
The concerned borrower remains responsible for transactions that occurred after the funds went to the proposed landowner’s account. The direct restriction as security remains in place even now. I have worked within the bank’s policies and rules, ‘credit policy guideline’, bank’s ‘code of conduct’, and my official responsibilities. I did not work under the influence of the borrower, taking financial benefits, donations, or gifts. I have performed work according to my responsibilities in accordance with the rules.
