Banking Offence and Punishment Act 2064 in Nepal (2026)

The Banking Offence and Punishment Act 2064 (2008) is the criminal-law statute that catches what civil banking remedies and CIB blacklisting cannot — the deliberate, systematic abuse of the banking system. Where a single bounced cheque triggers civil recovery and a CIB listing, an inflated collateral valuation supporting a fraudulent loan, an unauthorised payment by a bank officer to a related entity, or a forged credit application supporting a Series-A-style overdraft attracts criminal prosecution at the District Court with imprisonment of up to twelve years for the most serious offences. The 2073 amendment tightened the rules further, expanding the catalogue of offences and aligning penalties to the size of the financial harm.

This guide is the 2026 (2083 BS) practitioner's view of the Banking Offence and Punishment Act 2064: the structure of banking offences, the punishment ranges from three months to twelve years, the procedural process from FIR through prosecution at the District Court, the parallel CIB blacklisting consequences under the Nepal Rastra Bank Unified Directive, and the defences available to a person facing a banking-offence charge. Whether you are a bank officer facing investigation, a borrower caught in a fraud allegation, or counsel running a defence or prosecution-support file, this is the document you will work from.

Alpine Law Associates — Nepal Bar Council-registered banking and criminal-defence team handling banking-offence prosecutions and defences, CIB-listing matters, and cheque-bounce parallel files for 1,000+ clients.

Speak with our lawyers today →

What is the Banking Offence and Punishment Act 2064?

The Banking Offence and Punishment Act 2064 (2008) is Nepal's primary criminal-law statute targeting banking misconduct. Enacted in 2064 BS (2007–08 AD), it consolidated scattered provisions in the older banking laws and created a structured catalogue of offences and corresponding penalties. The 2073 amendment (2017) expanded the scope, brought additional categories within the criminal net (digital banking offences, fraud against new banking products), and aligned penalties with the financial scale of the harm caused.

The Act sits within a layered banking-misconduct framework. The Banking and Financial Institutions Act 2073 governs the licensing and operation of banks and finance companies. The Negotiable Instruments Act 2034 covers civil recovery for cheque bounce — see our cheque bounce guide. The Asset (Money) Laundering Prevention Act 2064 catches the illicit-origin angle. The Banking Offence and Punishment Act 2064 catches the deliberate-misconduct angle — actions by bank officers, borrowers, or third parties that deceive the banking system. The four work together as a comprehensive financial-crime framework with criminal, civil, and regulatory layers.

What are the main banking offences under the Act?

The Act catalogues banking offences into roughly twelve categories. The categories are not mutually exclusive; the same conduct often falls under multiple sections, and prosecutors charge under each applicable provision.

1. Unauthorised account opening or unauthorised cash payment. Opening an account without authentication, paying out cash without authorised approval, or processing transactions outside the bank's authorisation matrix.
2. Unauthorised withdrawals or payments. Withdrawing or transferring funds without proper authorisation — most often by bank officers exploiting their access.
3. Misuse of electronic means. Unauthorised access to banking systems, fraudulent electronic transfers, manipulation of digital banking applications, debit / credit card fraud.
4. Unauthorised loans / credit beyond limits. Lending beyond the authorised limit, lending to ineligible parties, lending without proper credit appraisal, or sanctioning loans through related-party routing.
5. Misuse of credit / banking resources. Using a granted facility for purposes other than what was sanctioned — diverting working capital to personal use, using a vehicle loan for a different purchase, channelling funds to unrelated entities.
6. Acquiring assets by overdue borrowers. A borrower with an overdue loan acquiring fresh assets (typically immovable property) without satisfying the existing creditor — a form of asset shielding caught by the Act.
7. Improper stopping of credit facilities. A bank officer unilaterally stopping or impairing a credit facility without proper authorisation or notice — typically used to favour a competing borrower.
8. Alterations in accounts or ledgers. Falsifying account entries, ledger alterations, transaction reversals to hide misconduct.
9. Forgery and fraud. Forged signatures, forged documents, manufactured supporting documents, and any fraudulent representation made to the bank.
10. False valuations or false financial statements. Inflating collateral values to support a larger loan, presenting false audited statements, manipulating project cost estimates.
11. Irregular economic transactions. Round-tripping, layering through multiple accounts, unusual transaction patterns designed to obscure the true nature of funds movement.
12. Illegal banking transactions. Banking transactions outside the licensed scope of the institution, hawala-style routes, and unlicensed banking activity.

What are the penalties under the Act?

The penalty structure is amount-tiered and section-tiered. Minor procedural offences attract relatively short sentences and modest fines; serious offences with substantial financial harm attract long sentences. The Act adopts the principle that the punishment should match the financial scale of the misconduct.

Section 3 — minor offences

Section 3 covers procedural and lower-scale offences — unauthorised account opening, minor unauthorised cash payments, low-amount account alterations. The punishment is up to three months' imprisonment plus a fine equal to the amount of the offence (where there is a financial amount involved). Section 3 cases are the most common at District Court banking-offence dockets and frequently end in plea-style resolutions where the offender restores the funds and accepts a short sentence.

Sections 7 and 13 — mid-tier offences

Sections 7 and 13 catch the substantive mid-tier offences — unauthorised loans, misuse of credit, false financial statements, irregular financial transactions, and similar conduct involving meaningful financial harm. The punishment is a fine equal to the amount of the offence plus imprisonment of up to four years. These are the workhorse sections of the Act in 2026 prosecution practice — most banking-officer prosecutions for unauthorised lending sit here.

Section 15 and the most serious offences — up to 12 years

Section 15 prescribes the punishment for the most serious banking offences — large-scale fraud, forgery causing substantial loss, false valuations supporting major lending fraud, and systematic misuse causing severe financial harm. The maximum is twelve years' imprisonment plus a fine equal to the amount of the offence. The Section 15 category is reserved for the egregious cases — typically where the bank officer or borrower acted in concert, the financial harm runs into crores, and there is documentary evidence of deliberate planning.

Aiding, abetting and conspiracy — half the punishment

The Act extends criminal liability beyond the direct offender. Any person or organisation that attempts to commit a banking offence, indirectly participates in it, or aids its commission is punished with half the punishment imposed on the principal offender. This principle catches:

• Borrower-side accomplices — accountants who prepared false financial statements, valuers who issued inflated valuations, employees who facilitated the borrower's fraud against the bank.
• Bank-side accomplices — colleagues of the principal officer who knew of the misconduct and facilitated it, even where they did not directly authorise the transaction.
• External advisers — lawyers, consultants, brokers who knowingly assisted the offence.

The "half punishment" rule is itself substantial. A six-year sentence for aiding a 12-year-tier offence is not a light consequence, and the Office of the Attorney General routinely charges accomplices alongside principals to maximise enforcement leverage.

Parallel CIB blacklisting — the regulatory layer

A Banking Offence Act 2064 conviction triggers automatic CIB blacklisting under Nepal Rastra Bank's Unified Directive — a parallel regulatory consequence on top of the criminal sentence. The CIB listing locks the convicted person out of credit at every NRB-licensed bank and finance company for the duration of the listing (typically aligned to the offence severity), making business continuation extremely difficult even after a sentence is served. For a comprehensive cover see our blacklisting process in Nepal guide.

The combination — criminal sentence plus CIB listing plus civil liability for the financial loss — is what makes Banking Offence Act 2064 charges particularly grave. Defendants who could absorb the criminal sentence often cannot survive the post-release credit lockout. Counsel for accused persons typically structures defence strategy around all three layers simultaneously, not just the criminal trial.

How a banking-offence case proceeds — from FIR to verdict

1. Internal bank investigation. The bank's internal audit or vigilance team identifies the suspicious transaction, prepares an investigation report, and decides whether to refer to police. Many offences are resolved internally through restoration and disciplinary action without referral.
2. FIR at Nepal Police. Where the bank refers, an FIR is filed at the local police station under the Banking Offence Act 2064. The FIR records the alleged offence, the named accused, and the financial harm.
3. Police investigation. The investigating officer collects banking records, electronic logs, witness statements, and expert opinions (forensic accountants, IT specialists for digital offences). The investigation is technically demanding and often takes months.
4. Charge sheet to the Office of Attorney General. The prosecutor reviews the file, decides whether to charge, and files the charge sheet at the District Court. The charge sheet specifies the section under the Act for each alleged offence.
5. Trial at District Court. Banking-offence trials are document-heavy. The bank's records, the accused's statements, expert testimony, and documentary evidence form the bulk of the trial. The Evidence Act 2031 standards apply — see our principles of evidence law guide.
6. Verdict and sentence. On conviction, the court fixes the sentence within the section's band and orders restitution where the financial harm is identifiable. CIB listing follows automatically.
7. Appeal. Either side may appeal a District Court verdict to the High Court within thirty-five days. A further Supreme Court appeal lies on substantial questions of law — particularly common in banking-offence cases involving novel digital-misconduct categories.

Defences against a banking-offence charge

The Banking Offence Act 2064 is a strict-liability-leaning statute, but recognised defences exist and are often determinative.

• Lack of mens rea (intent). Most banking offences require knowledge or intention. A bank officer who processed a transaction without knowing it was unauthorised, on the strength of forged superior approvals, may have a defence — though the burden of demonstrating absence of knowledge rests heavily on the accused.
• Authorisation defence. Where the accused acted within the bank's internal authorisation matrix, the offence of "unauthorised" lending or payment is not made out. Documentary evidence of the authorisation (board minute, credit committee approval, internal sanction) is decisive.
• Procedural defects. The prosecution must prove the chain of custody for banking records, the integrity of electronic logs, and the qualifications of expert witnesses. Procedural failures can lead to acquittal.
• Restoration of funds. While restoration does not technically extinguish the offence, courts treat full restoration before trial as a substantial mitigating factor — sentences within the band often shift toward the lower end.
• Mistaken identity. Bank fraud frequently involves multiple actors; the accused may not be the actual perpetrator. Identification through banking records, electronic logs, and witness testimony is testable on cross-examination.
• Limitation. The Criminal Procedure Code 2074's limitation rules apply to banking-offence prosecutions; offences not charged within the prescribed period are time-barred.

Common scenarios that attract Banking Offence Act 2064 prosecution

• Bank officer authorising loan to related party. A relationship manager sanctions a loan to a friend's company without proper credit appraisal, knowing the borrower's repayment ability is weak. When the loan turns NPA, the action surfaces in audit.
• Borrower submitting forged collateral valuation. A loan applicant submits a valuer's report inflating the collateral's market value to support a larger loan. Discovery during NPA recovery triggers prosecution.
• Forged signatures on cheque or instructions. A junior employee forges signatures of an authorised signatory to process unauthorised transfers. The internal audit catches the discrepancy.
• Misuse of credit facility. A working-capital loan is used to fund a real-estate purchase or to invest in another business. The diversion is discovered during loan-utilisation inspection.
• Irregular electronic transfers. An employee with system access manipulates digital transactions, transferring funds to personal accounts or unauthorised destinations.
• False financial statements supporting application. A borrower's audited statements are revealed to have been manipulated to project a stronger financial position than reality. Prosecution covers both the borrower and the auditor (as accomplice).

How can Alpine Law Associates help with banking-offence matters?

Alpine Law Associates handles Banking Offence Act 2064 matters across three engagement types. The first is defence representation — for bank officers, borrowers, valuers, accountants, and other professionals charged under the Act. Our defence strategy works across all three exposure layers simultaneously: criminal trial defence, CIB-listing defence and removal planning, and parallel civil-recovery defence where the bank has filed a Debt Recovery Tribunal action. The second is prosecution support — for banks that have suffered loss and need help structuring the FIR, organising forensic evidence, preparing witness statements, and supporting the Office of the Attorney General through trial. The third is preventive compliance — banks and finance companies seeking to harden their internal controls against the categories of offence the Act catches.

For corporate clients facing complex banking exposures — bank guarantees called, loan defaults turning into prosecution, valuation disputes — we coordinate banking-offence defence with Debt Recovery Tribunal defence and CIB-listing work. As a full-service law firm in Nepal, we run banking matters alongside corporate and dispute work in a single counsel relationship. NRN clients facing banking-offence allegations can engage remotely through power of attorney, though criminal trial attendance is generally required.

Speak with our lawyers today →

Last reviewed: April 2026