Kantipur published a news article on the first day of the new year 2025, which I had already blogged about yesterday, pointing out two glaring mistakes. However, instead of correcting the errors in today’s issue, they built their editorial on those very inaccuracies. Upon reading the news piece in detail, oh my… there were so many blunders and silly mistakes that I was compelled to write yet another blog.
In the article, the upper paragraph contradicts the lower one, no basic fact-checking was done, and it seems like the topic wasn’t understood before writing.
This news piece will remain a classic example for journalism students on how *not* to write, verify, or edit a news story. Missing this will probably waste a percentage of your life—decide that for yourself. Now, let’s move on to the dissection of this article.
I’ll highlight the errors in Kantipur’s article below and provide the facts underneath. This way, you can read, understand, and, if you don’t believe what I’ve written, click on the provided links to verify and draw your own conclusions.
Half a Billion in Widebody Bribes Managed from Singapore and Dubai**
Matrika DahalKathmandu — It has been revealed that bribes for the two widebody planes purchased by Nepal Airlines were routed through Singapore and Dubai after the payment reached Ireland.
Of the $4.14 million in bribes (around half a billion Nepali rupees), the funds were distributed through various accounts of ‘shell companies’ abroad. Investigations into money routed from other countries are also underway.
According to information obtained by Kantipur, agents from the UK, Germany, Portugal, and the US were involved in collusion to sell Airbus-manufactured planes from Hi Fly X, Ireland.
In journalistic terms, the first line is the headline, the second is the byline, and the third is the lead. We’ll come back to the lead later.
The headline itself has issues, which will become evident as you read further. The byline belongs to a journalist recently honored by the US government as an anti-corruption champion. When editing the work of such a celebrated journalist, shouldn’t there be extra caution? We don’t know what the journalist originally wrote and what was edited and published, but what we see is the newsroom failing to put in the required effort.
For example, in the second paragraph after the lead, it states:
Airbus is a French company.
This is incorrect. Airbus is a European public company, jointly owned by the governments of Germany, France, and Spain.
You might be wondering, should you trust Kantipur, the nation’s leading media, or me? To resolve this, here’s the shareholder structure graph from Airbus’s annual report:
If you’d like to view the document itself, click here to visit Airbus’s website.
Legally, Airbus is registered in the Netherlands. Check out this excerpt from their annual report:
Who ‘grabbed’ the contract?
The article states:
The center of this scheme was Deepak Sharma, a British citizen of Nepali origin, who established a one-dollar ‘shell company’ named Hi Fly X Ireland. This company grabbed the contract for two widebody ‘A330-200’ planes from the corporation.
This mistake arises from a lack of basic knowledge about the widebody case. According to the article, Deepak Sharma set up a one-dollar shell company, and this company grabbed the contract for two widebody planes. Did you understand it that way?
If yes, then you’re wrong. Even though the article says so, the truth is that the contract for purchasing widebody planes wasn’t awarded to just one company but to a consortium of three companies.
AAR Corp., German Aviation, and Hi Fly Aeros jointly won the contract. These three companies (let’s call them joint contractors) later established Hi Fly X in Ireland.
Hi Fly X didn’t grab the contract, and the claim that Deepak Sharma single-handedly established Hi Fly X is contradicted by documents. According to the documents, it was the consortium of three companies that established Hi Fly X.
Here’s an excerpt from the Public Accounts Committee’s subcommittee report:
Where did the money go?
The article states:
When purchasing the planes, the corporation paid $216.388 million (approximately NPR 23.2 billion at the time) in four installments to Hi Fly X Ireland.
According to the publicly available Public Accounts Committee subcommittee report, $1 million was paid to HiFly Transporte Aeroes under a commitment fee.
The HiFly mentioned in the article and the HiFly Transporte Aeroes are different entities—don’t get confused!
HiFly is a charter airline based in Portugal, with its headquarters in Lisbon. It specializes in providing ‘wet lease’ services for widebody aircraft.
HiFly X, on the other hand, is a one-dollar company set up in Ireland.
The remaining payments were to be sent in two installments through an escrow agent named Norton Rose. This agent was supposed to allocate the funds to Airbus and a BFE supplier.
Escrow Agent refers to a neutral or third-party entity responsible for ensuring compliance with the terms of an agreement between two parties.
Here’s an excerpt from the subcommittee report:
Which investigator claimed this?
The article states:
The funds sent by the corporation were distributed to various companies as commissions and then brought to Nepal via hawala transactions through Singapore and Dubai, according to investigators. The board of directors of the corporation, chaired by then Tourism Secretary Shankar Adhikari, decided on October 23, 2016, to purchase two widebody planes. Three days later, on October 26, 2016, a public notice was issued by the corporation.
Just because “investigators” claim something, can you write anything?
In Nepal, only two or three agencies investigate financial flows (in cases like this): the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA), the Department of Money Laundering Investigation, and the CIB (Central Investigation Bureau). Who are these “investigators”? Shouldn’t that be specified?
Writing whatever comes to mind?
The article states:
On November 9, 2016, the Managing Director of the corporation, Sugatratna Kansakar, formed an 11-member evaluation committee led by acting Deputy Managing Director Ramesh Bahadur Shah. Among the 11 companies that submitted proposals to sell planes to the corporation, a deal was struck with AAR Corp of America through collusion, according to the Special Court.
After the evaluation committee submitted its report on December 16, 2016, the corporation decided to procure the planes from AAR Corp based on their recommendation. Deepak Sharma, representing AAR Corp, signed the agreement with the corporation.
Since the corporation lacked funds, loans of NPR 25 billion were requested from the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) and Citizen Investment Trust (CIT). The Council of Ministers decided on April 20, 2017, to guarantee the loan. Interestingly, the EPF and CIT had initially declined to lend, citing the lack of transparency in the procurement process and the unreliability of the ‘shell company.’ However, once the Council of Ministers guaranteed the loan, the EPF and CIT ensured the funds. At that time, Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal was the Prime Minister.
Focus on the bolded sentence.
This is incorrect. The EPF requested supporting documents to ensure reliability. Due to the absence of such documents, the loan process was delayed. They didn’t label the ‘shell company’ as unreliable, nor did they outright claim a lack of transparency in the procurement process. Did they just assume “lack of transparency” and write it down?
I’ve reviewed the confidential decision from the EPF’s 1499th meeting held on May 30, 2017. It clearly lists the issues that needed clarification from Nepal Airlines.
The main points were:
- Clarification of the differences between the MOU and the Sales & Purchase Agreement signed in 2017.
- Assurance of payment processes and escrow accounts.
- Verification of aircraft acquisition and loan security.
- Submission of a certified copy of the agreement between Airbus SAS and Hi Fly X Ireland Ltd, notarized in the respective country.
After analyzing these points, the EPF decided to request further clarification and inform the government.
Now you see, requesting clarifications doesn’t mean labeling the process as non-transparent. The article, however, states, “citing lack of transparency and unreliability of the shell company, the EPF and CIT initially declined the loan.”
There’s no evidence in the minutes to suggest that they outright refused the loan.
Contradicting the lead within the same article
The article states:
While the corporation signed an agreement with AAR Corp, the funds for the planes were routed to Hi Fly X Ireland. However, Hi Fly X Ireland appointed Norton Rose Fulbright LLP as a third-party agent to receive the payment.
The corporation sent the funds to this third party. On February 15, 2017, $1 million was sent, followed by $79 million on May 17, 2017, to Hi Fly’s agent. The payments occurred during Dahal’s government.
Oh no. It’s time to sing, *“Hyaatterika Sailee Rimaai…”* Did the editor fall asleep on New Year’s Eve while editing this? The article contradicts itself in the same paragraph!
First, it says the funds were sent to Hi Fly X Ireland. Then it states that the payments were made to Norton Fulbright as an agent.
Which paragraph should we trust? The first or the latter?
To make it easy for you, here’s the earlier excerpt pasted again:
While the corporation signed an agreement with AAR Corp, the funds for the planes were routed to Hi Fly X Ireland. However, Hi Fly X Ireland appointed Norton Rose Fulbright LLP as a third-party agent to receive the payment.
The article later states:
Similarly, on June 26, 2018 (12th Asar 2075), $6.88 million was sent, and on July 24, 2018 (8th Shrawan 2075), another $6.88 million was transferred. Thus, in four installments, a total of $216.3 million (equivalent to NPR 23.2 billion at the time) was transferred to Norton Rose Fulbright LLP, the agent of Hi Fly X.
So, the money went to an escrow agent? Then why did the earlier paragraph claim it was sent to the Irish company? Make up your mind—within the same article, at least.
Doubting the lead itself
The article states:
After receiving payment from the corporation, Hi Fly X Ireland deposited $4.14 million into various accounts in Singapore and Dubai, which investigators confirmed were bribes. These funds were later distributed to other accounts almost immediately.
As of now, no public record shows money going directly into Hi Fly X Ireland’s account. The available information indicates the funds were dispersed from the escrow account. Yet the article claims the Irish company distributed the funds, which seems doubtful.
Let me redirect you to an investigative report by Deepak Adhikari and Rudra Pangeni for the Center for Investigative Journalism (CIJ) published on May 29, 2023 (16th Jestha 2080):
“When we reviewed the financial records of Hi Fly X, no evidence of funds being deposited into its account was found.”
Read the CIJ investigation here.
The CIJ article further states:
“An even more interesting fact is that Hi Fly X Ireland, in its financial reports submitted to the local government, showed no staff employed at the time of signing the agreement with the corporation. Additionally, despite being billed $215.3 million for the aircraft, its account balance reflected only a few thousand pounds.”
Was the article written as if by investigators?
The Kantipur article reads:
Hi Fly X transferred $2 million to German Aviation Capital Singapore through Allied Irish Bank (AIB) in three installments. On July 10, 2018, $750,000 was transferred, followed by $500,000 on August 3, 2018, and another $750,000 on August 14, 2018. The final payment was made on July 24, 2018, around the same time that bribes were reportedly distributed to accounts in Singapore and Dubai.
Reading this, one might think the journalist was working alongside investigators or pretending to be one. Even in court rulings, conclusions are based on available evidence.
What evidence supports this claim? Couldn’t the funds have been distributed from the escrow account instead of Hi Fly X? Yet, the article makes a definitive claim about Hi Fly X.
The article further states:
Funds received from Hi Fly X Ireland on July 10 were deposited into the account of German Aviation Capital Singapore, which then transferred $500,000 to Dubai’s Target Investment on August 6. German Aviation Capital Singapore also sent $639,020 to Matrix Cross Border, another Singaporean company.
And this pattern continues in the subsequent paragraphs, with claims of money flowing between entities, including Target Investment, Hi Fly Portugal, and Matrix Cross Border.
The implication? It almost feels as if the journalist worked directly with investigators or assumed the role of a financial sleuth. But where’s the solid proof?
As of now, there’s no evidence showing funds from Hi Fly X Ireland’s account being distributed directly. The funds could have remained abroad, used for investments, or even dispersed differently. This calls for clarity—whether the investigators are hypothesizing or reporting facts.
“Investigating bribes—seriously, by the central bank?”
The article states:
Even the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) showed interest in the bribe transactions, as did Nepal’s Ministry of Tourism and Civil Aviation and the Ministry of Law. Meanwhile, investigations into bribes and money laundering are ongoing by the CIAA and Nepal Rastra Bank.
Let’s pause for a second.
The FBI doesn’t casually “show interest” in matters—either an officer makes a statement, or the concerned Nepalese ministries disclose it. What kind of interest? Verbal, written, or what? There’s no clarity.
Regarding Nepal Rastra Bank (NRB), this part is laughable. NRB doesn’t conduct investigations into bribes—it monitors financial transactions and shares suspicious ones with enforcement agencies.
As for bribes and money laundering investigations, the CIAA might be involved, sure. But NRB? That’s like saying NASA investigates fish farming.
“Prakashman Singh as the Chairperson? But he wasn’t even a member!”
The article states:
On January 11, 2017 (Poush 27, 2073), a complaint about collusion in the procurement process was filed with the CIAA. Ignoring public concerns, the process moved forward, prompting the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee (PAC) to begin its investigation. On December 23, 2018 (Poush 8, 2075), a subcommittee was formed. Initially chaired by MP Prakashman Singh, with Naradmuni Rana and Renuka Gurung as members, the subcommittee was later restructured on January 3, 2019 (Poush 19, 2075), with MP Deepak Prakash Bhatt as the chairperson and members Dibya Mani Rajbhandari, Renuka Gurung, Sarala Kumari Yadav, and Sudan Kiranti. Based on the subcommittee’s findings, the PAC concluded that irregularities occurred and directed the CIAA to investigate and prosecute the culprits.
Kantipur claims Prakashman Singh chaired the PAC’s subcommittee. But the names listed in the public report clearly show otherwise. Check the cover of the PAC report:
Rajendra KC chaired the subcommittee that prepared this report—not Prakashman Singh.
What were the editors and fact-checkers doing? Sleeping?
Confusing committee names
The reporter seems to have mixed up committees entirely. While Prakashman Singh did chair the International Relations Committee, not the PAC’s subcommittee, that committee also issued a report on the Widebody procurement. However, its investigation wasn’t as in-depth.
Here’s an excerpt from the International Relations Committee’s report:
For reference, the original report can be viewed here.
So, copying excerpts from one report and attributing it to another? Seriously?
“10 years of jail time? For whom?”
The article says:
Following a five-year investigation, the CIAA filed a case in the Special Court last March (Chaitra 2081) against 32 individuals, including Nepali and foreign officials, with a compensation claim of NPR 1.47 billion.
The Special Court issued its verdict on December 6, 2081 (Mangsir 20, 2081), sentencing former secretaries Shankar Adhikari and Shishir Dhungana, former GM Sugeratna Kansakar, board member Buddhi Sagar Lamichhane, and seven foreign nationals to up to 10 years in prison along with fines equivalent to the embezzled amount.
Wait, 10 years? For whom?
Here’s the original Kantipur report from December 6, 2024 (21st Mangsir 2081):
As per Kantipur’s own report, no Nepali officials were sentenced to even 3 years in prison, let alone 10 years. The foreign nationals? NO ! go find Kantipur’s reporting on this issue. I am too tired to search for the link now 🙁
Investigating bribes: Other agencies?
The article states:
The Special Court convicted foreign officials involved in the Widebody procurement, including Ana Topa (MD, German Aviation Capital), Christian Neuhalen, John Holmes (CEO, AAR Corp), Oleg Kalistru (CFO, AAR), Paulo Miripuri (Chairman, Hi Fly X), and Gerald Thornton. Other agencies are conducting separate investigations into bribe transactions.
Hold up—what “other agencies”? In cases involving bribes, the CIAA handles investigations. Justice Council investigates judicial corruption, but that doesn’t apply here. So, who exactly is conducting these “separate investigations”?
Facts or assumptions?
The article claims:
The Special Court’s decision pertains only to corruption in procurement. Investigations into the laundering of bribe money and the tactics used are still ongoing, an official said.
At this point, it’s all speculation. There’s no clarity on whether the bribe money even entered Nepal or was reinvested abroad. All we know is that Deepak Sharma’s US case verdict is expected in early 2025. Maybe then, the details will emerge.
The American verdict hasn’t been delivered yet
The article states:
The US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) confirmed that AAR Corp bribed government officials in Nepal and South Africa to secure aircraft contracts. The US court fined AAR Corp $55 million (around NPR 7.5 billion).
Based on FBI findings, the US court issued its verdict in December 2024, with American officials visiting countries like Nepal, Africa, Dubai, Singapore, and the UK during the investigation. The company was convicted, but Sharma’s case is still pending.
This is plain misinformation. The American court hasn’t issued a “verdict” yet.
The company entered a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the US Department of Justice (DoJ), agreeing to pay a penalty and avoid prosecution. But a court judgment? That hasn’t happened.
The details are all public—just Google it. Or if that’s too hard, read my earlier blog.
The Final Blunder: Misrepresenting the Verdict
Kantipur’s editorial gives the impression of a full court judgment, but the facts don’t back it up. Let’s clarify:
1. AAR Corp’s Case:
– AAR Corp settled with the US Department of Justice and the SEC through an NPA (Non-Prosecution Agreement).
– The company admitted its violations, paid penalties, and avoided formal prosecution.
2. Individuals’ Cases:
– People like Deepak Sharma have pleaded guilty in their respective cases.
– However, formal sentencing is still pending, expected early this year.
So where’s the “verdict”? There isn’t one—at least not the kind Kantipur claims.
Kantipur’s Editorial: Adding Insult to Injury
After the errors in its main news story, Kantipur doubled down by publishing an editorial, building arguments on the same incorrect premises.
Would it kill them to fact-check their own reports?
Even international outlets like The New York Times and The Guardian maintain a **Corrections** page for transparency. Nepali outlets like Kathmandu Post have followed suit when Anup Kafle was editor. But Kantipur? Still stuck in the “We’re never wrong” mindset.
What Kantipur Should Understand
Journalistic integrity is under siege everywhere. Audiences and critics alike are quick to pounce on mistakes. In such an environment, credibility is the most precious currency a media outlet has.
Mistakes happen, but refusing to acknowledge or correct them only worsens the situation. For a legacy brand like Kantipur, the stakes are higher. People remember the brand, not individual editors or reporters.
By clinging to arrogance and ignoring its errors, Kantipur risks tarnishing its reputation permanently.
So, what’s left to say? Maybe this:
“Achyutam Keshavam Krishna Damodaram, Ram Narayanam Janaki Vallabham…”
Because praying seems more effective than expecting accountability at this point.
(This is translated version of original blog published in Nepali here)