The issuance of arrest warrants against former prime minister Sher Bahadur Deuba and former foreign minister Arzu Rana Deuba has shifted focus to a key question: how can Nepal bring them to justice as they remain abroad?

The couple had left the country citing medical treatment while a money laundering investigation was underway. They are now believed to be abroad, reportedly in Hong Kong via Singapore. With warrants approved by the Kathmandu District Court, authorities have formally classified the couple as absconding, setting the stage for a possible foreign pursuit.

The Post looks into the nitty-gritty of the case.

What charges are the Deubas facing?

Investigators are probing the couple for alleged money laundering linked to abuse of public office.

Deuba has served five terms as prime minister and seven terms as lawmaker, including stints in both the House of Representatives and the Constituent Assembly. Rana Deuba has held public office as foreign minister and a proportional representation lawmaker multiple times.

Authorities suspect that assets were acquired through the misuse of authority and later legitimised through laundering.

The Department of Money Laundering Investigation has invoked Section 9 of the National Criminal Procedure Code, 2017. This provision allows law enforcement to arrest individuals directly if they are found to be involved in an offence. Where immediate arrest is not possible, investigators may seek an arrest warrant by presenting justification for the arrest.

Officials said the Kathmandu District Court issued warrants under subsections (2) and (4) of Section 9 after the suspects were not available for immediate arrest.

The investigation also relies on provisions of the Asset (Money) Laundering Prevention Act, 2008. Section 15(a) empowers authorities to investigate laundering offences, including associated predicate crimes.

Section 16(1)(a) authorises investigators to demand documents, records, financial details and other relevant information from government bodies, regulatory agencies, reporting entities and individuals. Officials said the department had already collected property and financial records linked to the couple and their relatives before escalating the probe.

The case reportedly traces back to an incident on September 9, 2025, when partially burnt currency notes were found at Deuba’s residence. Authorities documented the incident and treated it as a trigger for a wider financial investigation, which has since expanded.

Where are they now?

The couple initially travelled abroad after sustaining injuries during the Gen Z protest movement in September.

Following treatment in Nepal, they obtained new passports and travelled to Singapore. After a brief return to Nepal, Rana again travelled abroad via India, eventually reaching Singapore. Deuba later travelled to Singapore separately on February 25, again citing medical treatment.

They are now believed to have moved onward to Hong Kong. However, the family has not publicly confirmed their precise location, hospital, or duration of stay.

Several relatives who have come under investigative scrutiny are also outside Nepal. Deuba’s son is reported to be abroad. His nephew, a provincial assembly member, is said to have travelled to India and then the United States. Rana’s brother is also reported to be overseas.

What legal and diplomatic options does Nepal have?

Nepal has multiple channels to seek their return.

One option is diplomatic engagement through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs with authorities in jurisdictions where the suspects are believed to be present, such as Hong Kong or Singapore. This may involve formal requests, mutual legal assistance mechanisms, or coordination at the government level.

Another route is direct law enforcement cooperation. Nepal Police can communicate with foreign counterparts through established channels, both formally and informally, to share information and seek assistance.

A key mechanism is through Interpol, which facilitates international police cooperation. Interpol enables member countries to share information and coordinate efforts to locate and arrest suspects who have crossed borders.

Nepal has been a member of Interpol since 1967 and operates through its National Central Bureau (NCB), headed by the inspector general of Nepal Police. All communication with Interpol is channelled through the NCB.

How does the Interpol process work?

When a suspect is subject to an arrest warrant, Nepal can request a Red Notice through Interpol.

The process begins with the National Central Bureau preparing a request with supporting documents, including details of the case, the arrest warrant, and identification information. This request is submitted to Interpol’s general secretariat.

Interpol reviews the submission to ensure it meets its legal and procedural standards. If the criteria are satisfied, a Red Notice is issued and circulated among member countries.

A Red Notice alerts law enforcement agencies worldwide to locate and detain the individual, pending extradition or deportation proceedings.

If documentation is incomplete or raises concerns, Interpol may seek clarification or reject the request.

Once issued, the notice places the individual on international watchlists, and member countries may act based on their domestic laws and policies.

Is Interpol action binding?

No. Interpol does not have enforcement authority.

Former deputy inspector general of Nepali Police Hemanta Malla said Interpol functions as a coordination platform rather than a coercive body. Red Notices are requests for cooperation, not binding legal orders.

Each member country retains discretion over whether to act on a Red Notice. Decisions are influenced by domestic laws, bilateral agreements, and political considerations.

Countries may refuse to detain or extradite individuals if they perceive the case as politically motivated or if the individual has legal protections such as residency or citizenship.

What are the practical challenges?

Several factors complicate the process.

First, Nepal does not have an extradition treaty or mutual legal assistance agreement with Hong Kong. This limits formal legal pathways for compulsory return.

Second, even if authorities in Hong Kong act on a Red Notice and detain the individuals, they can challenge deportation through local courts. Legal proceedings in the host jurisdiction can be lengthy and uncertain.

Third, the political profile of the individuals may influence how the case is perceived internationally. Deuba is a senior political figure who has held the highest executive office multiple times. Rana has also held high-level positions. Some jurisdictions may interpret the case through a political lens, especially given the context of recent unrest and the couple’s claim of travelling for medical reasons after injury.

Legal experts say that if the individuals argue they are at risk or seek protection on political grounds, host authorities may be cautious in proceeding with deportation.

Past cases illustrate these challenges. Individuals convicted or accused in Nepal have remained abroad despite Red Notices, either due to foreign citizenship, lack of extradition agreements, or reluctance by host countries to cooperate.

What happens next?

The home ministry is preparing to move forward with the Interpol Red Notice process through the Nepal Police.

Officials said coordination is underway between the Department of Money Laundering Investigation, Nepal Police and relevant ministries to compile documentation and initiate formal requests.

However, the process is expected to be complex and time-consuming. Even if a Red Notice is issued, securing the return of the individuals will depend on legal, diplomatic and political factors beyond Nepal’s direct control.

In practical terms, while Interpol can increase pressure and visibility, it does not guarantee that the Deuba couple will be brought back swiftly.