Graft slabs to ten years, CIAA investigation, Special Court trial — how corruption liability works for public servants, givers, intermediaries and contractors, and how these cases are defended.
Corruption prosecutions blend criminal trial with institutional autopsy: procurement files, valuation reports, property statements and bank trails examined simultaneously by investigators, auditors and courts. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 2059 grades punishment by graft amount up to ten years, punishes givers like takers, and confiscates the proceeds — while the CIAA and Special Court run a forum with its own tempo.
Who is liable
Public servants who accept or agree to accept graft for official acts face slab punishment from 3 months (≤ NPR 25,000) to 8–10 years (above NPR 1 crore), plus equivalent fines and confiscation. Private persons who pay, intermediate or abet face graded liability — givers the same slabs as takers. Contractors, valuers and auditors caught in procurement probes are therefore accused, not bystanders.
Beyond bribery: the wider net
The Act reaches false bills and double payments, unnatural procurement and valuation, loss to public property with mala fide intent (up to 2 years plus recovery), false official documents (3 months–1 year), illicit gifts and free services to officials, and false property statements. Audit objections and National Vigilance Centre surveillance routinely mature into these charges years after the underlying decisions.
Investigation and trial
The CIAA demands documents, records statements and files cases; trial runs exclusively before the Special Court with appeals upward. Corruption arrests warrant immediate bail strategy, inquiry-stage statements need counsel control, and charge sheets live or die on graft arithmetic — slab computation errors and sanction defects are standard defence openings.
Practical guidance
Officials under inquiry: respond through counsel, preserve decision-record narratives (minutes, notings, approvals) while reachable, and align criminal defence with parallel departmental proceedings. Contractors: review procurement files with counsel before submission. Whistleblowers: structured, documented reporting protects more than anonymous leaks.
Key takeaways
- Graft slabs: 3 mo (≤ NPR 25K) → 8–10 yrs (> NPR 1cr) + fine + confiscation
- Givers and intermediaries punished alongside takers
- CIAA investigates; Special Court tries exclusively
- Procurement, valuation and property-statement paper trails decide cases
General information for public awareness — not legal advice for your specific situation. Consult an advocate →
Frequently asked questions
I paid a bribe because work would otherwise stop. Am I guilty?
Givers face the same slabs, but coercion and lack of criminal intent are factual defences to build early with evidence — not assumptions to rely on. Document the demand contemporaneously.
Can old decisions be reopened as corruption?
Yes — procurement and property cases routinely arise years later from audits and vigilance findings. Preserving decision records is long-term self-defence for every official.
Will conviction cost my job and pension?
Departmental consequences — suspension, dismissal, pension effects — run parallel to criminal liability and need coordinated defence from the start.
References
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 2059, Ch. 2 (Secs. 3–9) — offences and punishments
- Constitution of Nepal, 2072 — CIAA mandate and Special Court jurisdiction
- Public Procurement Act, 2063 — procedural duties behind procurement charges
Verify current wording and commencement at the Nepal Law Commission (lawcommission.gov.np) before relying on any provision. Reviewed by a Nepal-qualified advocate in April 2026.