Bank employee charged with embezzling Nu 7.9 mn heads to Australia from Paro Airport before legal prosecution despite OAG request to MoFAET to block her passport

In November 2023, the BNB Paro Branch found that a teller had embezzled Nu 7.9 million (mn) over a period of time from the daily cash handed over to her for transactions.

It was alleged that she created some fake withdrawals to cover up for her withdrawals and she used the money in her business.

After she was caught by BNB, she was made to pay the entire money owed to the bank in two installments within two days. She was then terminated and her case was investigated by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC).

The ACC investigation charged her with embezzlement and abuse of function and forwarded the case to the Office of the Attorney General (OAG).

Even though the money had been given back, the ex-teller was still being charged for the act by itself.

With a large amount of money involved the crime under the ACC Act would mean a felony of the second degree (9 to 15 years) and under the Penal Code a felony of the third degree (5 to 9 years).  

This meant a high chance of her getting some jail time.

When the case was with ACC, the ex-teller requested ACC if she can go to Australia to drop her children. Her husband works in Australia.

A source in ACC said that her request was denied.

When ACC finished its investigation, the commission handed back her passport, but here the OAG on 20^th December 2024 wrote to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and External Trade (MoFAET) to block her passport, and MoFAET was supposed to alert the immigration authorities in Paro Airport to ensure she cannot exit from there.

The ex-teller or accused even requested the OAG if she can travel to Australia, but OAG also denied her request as her case was about to be prosecuted, and it was feared that she may not come back once she leaves.

OAG found out in early February 2025 that the accused is not in the country. OAG asked ACC for help to locate her, and even ACC could not locate her. Her number was switched off and she did not respond to emails according to ACC and OAG.

Unable to find her the OAG suspected that once she got her passport, she may have left to Australia via India avoiding exiting from Paro Airport.

In the meantime, the lawyer of the accused claimed that she did get travel authorization from the ACC. The lawyer also said that once the matter reaches court, he may have to defend her, and their position is that the money was given back, and so no serious action needs to be taken.

ACC flatly denied issuing any such travel authorization.

OAG said ACC would not do something like that undermine the case, and moreover, both agencies are in constant communication on the case.

The fear now is that the accused may not come back, given the possible prison time in the case.

OAG is expected to wait for around a month or less, and if she is not in Bhutan by then, they will charge her in court and get a judgment in absentia.

This paper has decided it will only name the accused in any future article if she is not back within a month.

Once a conviction is secured then the OAG through the RBP can issue an Interpol Alert. An alert like this would mean that if the accused ever flies to any international destination, then no country will accept her, and they will ensure she flies onwards till reaching Bhutan.

In the meantime, the accused former teller contacted this reporter on Saturday morning via WhatsApp after the paper published a hardcopy story about her case. The lawyer had not given the WhatsApp contact number of the accused to the paper.

The accused showed the writer her passport copy which showed she exited from Paro Airport on 17 January 2025 with an exit stamp by immigration authorities. She also sent copies of her plane tickets and she claimed she did not abscond.

The paper then checked with the immigration office in Paro Airport and it was confirmed that they never received any data or information to block her passport. The Paro Airport Immigration Office uses an online database updated by the Department of Immigration where blocked passports cannot leave the country.

The above means a major lapse has occurred and either the Foreign Ministry did not inform the Immigration Department or that the Department did not update the list.  

The OAG letter was addressed to the Foreign Secretary on 20 December 2024 informing the ministry about the case and asking the Foreign Ministry to impound the passport of the former teller since her presence is required in the criminal case trial.

This paper called the Foreign Secretary multiple times and messaged her on WhatsApp about the OAG letter and the case, but there was no response. The paper then also called the Immigration Director multiple times and messaged the Director on WhatsApp and via SMS and there was no response.

The accused also sent the paper a 7^th June 2024 letter from the ACC which handed back her passport seized during the investigation and the letter also revokes the impounding of her passport which was impounded on 20^th February 2024.

The accused claimed that when she was getting back her passport and the letter, an ACC officer informed her that she can go anywhere now that her passport is being given back.

However, the ACC flatly denied any officer made such a statement. The ACC said the passport of the accused was impounded based on a Paro Court order for 108 days and when the ACC tried to get an extension to impound the passport for more time the Paro Court did not grant the extension.

The ACC said that on 19^th February 2024 when the accused was released from custody, the ACC made her sign a Bail and Bond Undertaking which she among other things committed to not leave Bhutan without the permission of the Commission and seek permission in writing to leave Bhutan.

In the absence of the Paro Court not extending the impounding of the passport it seems that was the only legal document holding back the accused.

The OAG took around 6 months to review the case and it decided that the case is fit for prosecution and prepared the charges accordingly.

In the meantime, the accused processed her visa to go to Australia to drop her two children there to the father.

She wrote an application to the ACC in December 2024 requesting for permission to go to Australia to drop her children and that she would return promptly and be available for any hearings and summons.

The ACC as per a letter sent to the OAG on 19^th December 2024 denied her request and the ACC alerted the OAG saying that a mere denial of request may not prevent her from leaving the country.

The Commission asked OAG’s intervention to take appropriate legal measures to impound her travel documents either by obtaining an injunction or a temporary restraining order from the Court pursuant to the relevant provisions of the CCPC, pending the outcome of the case.

The OAG did not get a court order since her offence was not very serious and the OAG was not aware she already got her visa. The OAG planned to get a court order on the travel documents once the charges are filed. However, for pre-trial purposes the OAG wrote to the Foreign Ministry on 20^th December 2024 citing section 109 of the Anti-Corruption Act of Bhutan to impound the travel documents of the accused.

The accused said that the ACC asked her to approach the OAG when she made her appeal to travel.

She said that in her meetings with the OAG, they never explicitly told her not to travel but they kept saying that meetings will have to be held on her case and a decision will be given later.

However, here the OAG denied her account and said it was made very clear to the accused and her father who came together to seek permission for travel and later also her brother that she cannot travel as it is a criminal case and she may not come back once she travels out. The OAG said they have multiple eyewitnesses of OAG officials when this was made clear to her and her family members.

The accused maintains that she never got a clear answer and that if they had given her in writing or even told her that her documents will get impounded by the Foreign Ministry, she would not have travelled.

The accused has two other civil cases with private parties where she got permission from the judge to travel assuring her father would be her surety and represent her. Being civil cases the judge in those cases allowed her to travel as her father and lawyer can represent her.

However, in the ACC and OAG criminal case she does not have any permission from the judiciary to travel.

The accused questioned if the ACC and OAG would cover her travel expenses if they want her back.

The reporter asked her when does she plan to come back now that she is aware that the ACC and OAG are looking for her. The accused said it now depends on if the ACC and OAG contact her and what they say and she also has some medical treatment to do in Australia. The reporter again pressed for a specific timeline by when she would be back but she again said it depends on the ‘situation’.

The OAG and ACC have been looking for her and they say her phone is switched off and she does not respond to emails and even WhatsApp messages. The accused said she had given her new contact number at the bottom of her application letter to ACC and even though the number is switched off her WhatsApp is active.

The accused maintained her innocence in the case saying that she gave the money back as soon as the branch pointed out the issue.

An accused being able to leave the country like this, just before prosecution despite being denied and her passport being flagged for blocking also raises questions on the effectiveness of legal agencies in stopping such people from leaving. It also exposes coordination issues among agencies.

This is not the first time an accused has headed to Australia. Earlier in 2018, a Kidu Officer from Trongsa while on bail in a rape case, fled to Australia even though the bail condition was not to leave Trongsa. He also managed to get the NOC from the police to get his visa processed. An Interpol Red Notice was issued against him. In June 2024 the officer, Chencho Gyeltshen, was convicted for rape and sentenced to 10 years.

In another case, a former Procurement Officer, Sonam Dorji, of the erstwhile Ministry of Information and Communication (MoIC), was the main accused in embezzling around 50% of a Nu 100 mn of Electric Vehicle, ICT and other projects between 2020-2022. Sonam resigned just two months before the Audit report and left for Australia as a dependent with his wife who is on a student visa.

ACC sought help from RBP for an Interpol notice since Sonam was not cooperating to come back. The Interpol has not yet issued a Red Notice against him though one has been issued against Chencho.

Even if wanted Bhutanese are detained in Australia, it will be a huge challenge for Bhutan to extradite them to Bhutan in the absence of a Mutual Legal Assistance Act (MLA) in Bhutan. Under the Act, however, Bhutan would also have to provide information and assistance to other countries if their wanted people fled here. An MLA Act would also make it easier to seek an extradition treaty or agreement with other countries.

Editor’s Note: The online version of this story has been updated with additional information and updates.