The Bhutanese Leading the way.
In light of the recent coverage on Middle Path ECPF, the Competition and Consumer Affairs Authority (CCAA) said that the authority did everything in their power, including mediation and refund facilitation, prior to the firm’s closure.
“Allegations (from victims) claiming that CCAA failed to act are inconsistent with the full factual circumstances of the matter,” said an official from CCAA.
Between June and October 2025, the CCAA settled six initial complaints, recovering over Nu 1.27 million (mn) for victims.
Soon after, on 18th November 2025, the authority received eleven additional complaints against the same firm.
On the same date, one complainant voluntarily withdrew his complaint, citing his absence from the jurisdiction and his election not to pursue the matter further.
Officials used WhatsApp and phone calls to gather evidence and keep complainants updated on the evolving case.
A WhatsApp group was created to facilitate ongoing communication and to ensure that the complainants were well informed of case developments.
Afterwards, CCAA made repeated and documented attempts to reach out to the CEO, who was apparently residing abroad, as well as the proprietor Yeshi Yuden through telephone, WhatsApp and email, but remained unresponsive.
The General Manager (GM) of the firm, which is based in Thimphu, represented to the CCAA that she lacked the requisite authority and financial resources to process refunds independently.
Notwithstanding this constraint, through persistent follow-up with both the GM and the CEO’s brother, the CCAA was able to facilitate restitution of Nu 95,000 to two complainants.
The CCAA continued to actively pursue recovery of the outstanding amounts for the remaining complainants, including the balance sums owed to one of those who had received only partial reimbursement.
In response to the CCAA’s repeated demands for an explanation regarding the delay in processing refunds, the CEO communicated via email on 18th December 2025, asserting that not all students were entitled to full refunds by virtue of the institution’s applicable fee structure.
The explanation further indicated that deductions comprised a non-refundable administrative fee of £260 and a seat confirmation/booking fee of £1,000, the latter refundable only in accordance with the institution’s stated refund policy.
In the previously covered article, a 27-year-old individual alleged that her refund amount had been ‘mysteriously reduced’ to Nu 119,369 from her earlier claimed figure of approximately Nu 130,443.
The authority says that it informed the complainant that the differential was attributable to the deduction of the administrative fee, the seat confirmation/booking fee, and a consultation fee, as communicated by the CEO.
As she disputed the deductions and the net refund amount with the CCAA, she was advised to seek clarification with the CEO regarding the basis of the deductions.
With respect to the execution of the Letter of Undertaking, the complainant was informed that she was under no obligation to sign the document unless she was in agreement with the final sum.
The complainant informed that the CEO was unresponsive to her communications, and that, while dissatisfied with the outcome, she preferred to accept the amount offered.
The CCAA reiterates that no complainant was coerced or compelled to execute any undertaking.
These undertakings were intended to serve as formal acknowledgements of liability and as documentary evidence for any legal proceedings, with the mutually agreed refund amounts reflected between the complainants and the firm.
The documents were signed by the GM based in Thimphu and by the CEO’s brother, as the CEO’s representative acting pursuant to an authorization letter issued by the CEO, who resides in Australia.
An official from the Bhutan Qualifications for Professional Certification Authority (BQPCA) said that they had received a ton of complaints against Middle Path ECPF and sent a letter to CCAA regarding the deregistration of the firm that was due to happen soon.
CCAA had requested BQPCA to wait until 30th December 2025 to process the refunds of the remaining complainants.
After the formal deregistration of Middle Path ECPF on 31st December 2025, CCAA was no longer able to maintain communication with the company, as anticipated, since staff members resigned consequently.
The CCAA advised the complainants to take appropriate legal proceedings directly against the firm as there was no alternative avenue for administrative resolution.
As per CCAA’s records, the total outstanding liability stands at approximately Nu 0.95 mn, representing the aggregate sum payable to the remaining complainants as acknowledged under the executed Letter of Undertaking.
The CCAA also corrected a previous ‘computational error,’ noting the actual outstanding liability is Nu 0.95 mn, not Nu. 0.64 mn.
An official from BQPCA said that their actions were conducted all in line with the Guidelines for ECPFs 2021.
The official said, “We received a lot of complaints against Middle Path ECPF and passed continuous warnings and cautions to them.”
BQPCA deregistered the firm to ‘stop the problem at the source’ and to prevent further victims.
“While we are the regulatory body for monitoring ECPFs, we do not have the authority to sanction refunds. This is why complainants were led to the CCAA,” the official added.
This is an alarming issue for the many Bhutanese individuals, who dream of pursuing opportunities abroad, stressing the need for stronger regulation and stricter monitoring for ECPFs.
The BQPCA official said that these issues require multi-stakeholder participation and an Annual General Meeting will be held among ECPFs and government agencies to discuss better regulations and monitoring for ECPFs.
