दीपक भट्टसँग जोडिएका १८ कम्पनीको एक खर्बभन्दा बढीको ऋण निगरानीमा, रेटिङ 'क्रेडिट वाच'माOver Rs. 100 Billion in Corporate Debt Under Watch as Companies Linked to Deepak Bhatt Face Credit Scrutiny
सम्पत्ति शुद्धीकरण, धितोपत्र, बीमा र बैंकिङ कसुरसम्बन्धी मुद्दामा प्रभावशाली व्यवसायीहरू तानिएसँगै त्यसको तरंग अब कर्पोरेट जगतसम्म पुगेको छ। ती व्यवसायीहरूसँग आबद्ध कम्पनीहरूको एक खर्ब रुपैयाँभन्दा बढीको कर्पोरेट ऋण तथा लगानी जोखिम निगरानीको दायरामा आएको छ।
क्रेडिट रेटिङ एजेन्सी इन्फोमेरिक्स नेपालले मुद्दामा मुछिएका प्रवर्द्धक, सञ्चालक तथा प्रमुख व्यवस्थापकीय अधिकारीहरूसँग आबद्ध १८ कम्पनीको रेटिङलाई 'क्रेडिट वाच विथ नेगेटिभ इम्प्लिकेसन्स' मा राखेको छ। यसको अर्थ ती कम्पनीहरू तत्काल वित्तीय संकटमा परेका छैनन् — तर कानुनी प्रक्रियाले भविष्यमा उत्पन्न गर्न सक्ने जोखिमप्रति एजेन्सीले सतर्कताको संकेत दिएको हो।
सरकारले हालसालै धितोपत्रसम्बन्धी कसुरमा ८१ जना, बीमासम्बन्धी कसुरमा ४२ जना, सम्पत्ति शुद्धीकरणसम्बन्धी कसुरमा ३९ जना र बैंकिङ कसुरमा ५ जनालाई प्रतिवादी बनाएर अदालतमा मुद्दा दायर गरेको छ। यीमध्ये केही व्यक्ति सार्वजनिक कम्पनी र ठूला निजी व्यवसायिक समूहका प्रमुख पदमा कार्यरत छन् — जसले यो मुद्दाको व्याप्ति साधारण कानुनी विवादभन्दा माथि पुगेको देखाउँछ।
इन्फोमेरिक्सले रेटिङ निगरानीमा राख्नुको कारण स्पष्ट पारेको छ। कानुनी प्रक्रिया लम्बिँदा कम्पनीको निर्णय प्रक्रिया अवरुद्ध हुन सक्छ, वित्तीय स्रोत परिचालनमा कठिनाइ आउन सक्छ र बैंक तथा लगानीकर्ताको विश्वास खस्कन सक्छ। यी सम्भावित जोखिमहरूलाई आधार बनाएर मात्र रेटिङ निगरानीमा राखिएको हो — कम्पनीहरू दोषी प्रमाणित भइसकेका होइनन् भनी एजेन्सीले स्पष्ट पारेको छ।
अदालतको अन्तिम फैसला, व्यवस्थापनमा हुने सम्भावित परिवर्तन र कम्पनीहरूको आगामी वित्तीय प्रदर्शनका आधारमा रेटिङ घटाउने, यथावत राख्ने वा पुनरावलोकन गर्ने निर्णय गरिने एजेन्सीले जनाएको छ।
बजार विश्लेषकहरूका अनुसार यो घटनाक्रमले नेपालको कर्पोरेट क्षेत्रमा सुशासन र पारदर्शिताको बहसलाई नयाँ उचाइमा पुर्याएको छ। बैंक, वित्तीय संस्था र लगानीकर्ताहरूले ती कम्पनीहरूको जोखिम प्रोफाइललाई अझ नजिकबाट हेर्नुपर्ने अवस्था सिर्जना भएको छ — र यसले नेपालको व्यापारिक जगतमा जवाफदेहिताको नयाँ अध्याय सुरु भएको संकेत गर्छ।
The legal storm surrounding prominent Nepali businessman Deepak Bhatt and a wider circle of influential figures facing charges related to money laundering, securities fraud, insurance irregularities, and banking offenses has begun sending shockwaves through the corporate sector. Companies connected to the accused are now under formal financial scrutiny, with more than Rs. 100 billion in corporate debt and investment exposure entering a zone of heightened risk monitoring.
Credit rating agency Infomerics Nepal has placed 18 companies — linked to promoters, directors, and key management personnel named in the ongoing legal proceedings — under "Credit Watch with Negative Implications." The designation does not mean these companies are immediately in financial distress or that their creditworthiness has deteriorated today. What it signals is that the legal uncertainty surrounding their leadership creates conditions under which risks could materialize in ways that are not yet fully visible, and that investors, lenders, and counterparties should monitor the situation closely.
The scale of the legal action that triggered this response is significant. The government has filed cases in court naming 81 individuals on securities-related offenses, 42 on insurance-related charges, 39 on money laundering allegations, and 5 on banking offenses. Some of these individuals hold or have held senior positions in publicly listed companies and large private business groups — which is precisely why the legal proceedings have implications that extend beyond the individuals themselves and reach into the companies they control or influence.
Infomerics has been careful to articulate exactly why it has placed these ratings under watch. Prolonged legal proceedings create specific operational risks for the companies involved. Decision-making processes can become paralyzed or disrupted when key leaders are occupied with or constrained by legal matters. Access to financial resources can tighten as banks and financial institutions apply additional caution to companies whose leadership is under scrutiny. Investor and lender confidence can erode even before any legal outcome is determined. And market reputation — once damaged by association with high-profile legal cases — can take considerable time to rebuild regardless of how proceedings ultimately conclude.
The agency has been equally careful to clarify what the credit watch does not mean. These companies have not been found guilty of anything. The legal process is ongoing, and the presumption of innocence applies. The credit watch is specifically a tool for signaling potential future risk under conditions of legal uncertainty — not a verdict on present financial health. Depending on how proceedings develop, Infomerics has indicated that ratings could be downgraded, maintained at current levels, or revised upward if the situation resolves favorably. The outcome of court proceedings, potential changes in management, and the ongoing financial performance of the companies will all factor into future rating decisions.
Market analysts observing the situation note that this development places banks, financial institutions, and investors in a position where they must conduct more rigorous risk assessments of their exposure to the affected companies. Lenders who have extended credit to these entities will need to evaluate whether the legal proceedings create risks to repayment capacity. Investors holding securities issued by these companies will need to reassess whether the risk profile they originally accepted remains unchanged. The practical effect is a tightening of financial conditions around the affected corporate group — not through any formal regulatory action, but through the natural response of a market that is paying closer attention.
The broader significance of this episode lies in what it reveals about corporate governance in Nepal. The fact that legal proceedings against individual businesspeople can put more than Rs. 100 billion in corporate debt under watch reflects the degree to which Nepal's corporate sector is often built around the personalities and connections of key individuals rather than robust institutional structures and independent governance mechanisms. When those individuals face legal challenges, the companies they anchor face institutional vulnerability precisely because the separation between personal legal exposure and corporate governance was never clearly established.
For Nepal's capital market and banking sector, the message embedded in this episode is important. Companies whose operations, financing relationships, and market standing are dependent on the personal credibility of a single promoter or director are structurally fragile in ways that routine financial analysis may not capture. The current situation demonstrates why lenders, regulators, and investors need to look beyond financial statements and into governance structures — asking not just whether a company is profitable today, but whether it has the institutional depth to navigate challenges when its key individuals are no longer available or credible to lead it.
