Kathmandu: The man accused of sending his own father to jail, derailing his brother’s career, and betraying close business partners now finds himself at the centre of a storm, as anger within the so-called “Himalayan Group” boils over.
Sulabh Agrawal, once seen as the driving force behind an ambitious financial empire, is now being blamed by his own allies for dragging them into one of the most controversial financial scandals in recent memory.
The Himalayan Group was never a formal corporate entity on paper. Rather, it was an informal network of influential businessmen tied together by shared investments and mutual trust. It brought together players from the Shankar Group, including its vice chairman Sulabh Agrawal, and individuals linked to Infinity Holdings and power broker Deepak Bhatta.
United by a vision, they sought to build a financial empire under the “Himalayan” brand by acquiring and consolidating institutions, including Himalayan Life Insurance, Himalayan Reinsurance, and potentially even a stock exchange. At one point, the group also aggressively pursued a stake in Himalayan Bank, aiming to bring all “Himalayan” entities under a single umbrella. But that ambition began to unravel, largely due to Sulabh’s increasingly erratic decisions and assertive style.
As the group gained momentum, its members placed extraordinary trust in Sulabh and Bhatt. Many admitted they blindly followed their lead, allowing Sulabh to act as a de facto ruler while they remained largely ceremonial directors. Some even defended him publicly and privately, believing in his ability to deliver results through influence and connections. Today, that trust has turned into deep resentment. Partners accuse Sulabh of misusing public funds and destroying not only his own reputation but also theirs. The once cohesive group has fractured following the arrests of both Sulabh and Bhatt, ending nearly five years of dominance.
One partner described Sulabh as dangerously impulsive, someone so driven by the urge to make money that he would sacrifice even family ties. Others admit they feel humiliated, saying they had never experienced such a level of betrayal in their business careers. Many now regret failing to recognize warning signs earlier, acknowledging that their overconfidence in Sulabh has come at a heavy cost.
Despite not holding a formal executive role in some companies, sources say Sulabh exercised significant control behind the scenes. In Himalayan Reinsurance, for instance, while Shekhar Golchha served as chairman, Sulabh reportedly made key decisions, often attending board meetings and influencing outcomes without being officially accountable. Golchha’s reputation and credibility were seen as strategic assets, helping the company gain regulatory approval and public trust, while Sulabh operated in the background.
When questioned, partners say they turned to Sulabh for guidance. His advice was simple: declare that all investments were made using tax-paid funds, and there would be no issue. But as investigators dug deeper, discrepancies emerged
Sulabh’s influence extended beyond corporate governance. He was known to present lucrative, high-return investment ideas, sometimes promising returns of 15 to 20 percent within a month. His ability to “get things done” quickly further reinforced his image. There are accounts of him resolving complex issues within minutes, even across borders, which only deepened the group’s reliance on him.
Over time, his growing confidence, fueled by political backing and past successes, reportedly turned into arrogance. Partners claim he openly berated senior government officials, sometimes even in front of ministers, without facing consequences—an indication of the power he wielded.
The turning point came with a controversial investment plan involving Nepal Reinsurance shares. Sulabh proposed creating a pooled fund of around Rs 2 billion, with each partner contributing roughly Rs 400 million. The idea was to buy shares in the names of proxies rather than directly, based on his claim that approvals from the Ministry of Finance were already secured and profits would follow quickly. Encouraged by legal advice that such investments were permissible if tax-paid money was used, the partners agreed.
Funds began flowing through broker channels, with large sums advanced in anticipation of the deal. In some cases, money was routed through different individuals’ names, creating a complex web of transactions. At one point, more than Rs 2.7 billion was reportedly parked with a broker to purchase shares. The arrangement appeared profitable initially, as share prices rose significantly. However, when some partners sought to exit and book profits, Sulabh discouraged them, arguing that large-scale selling would drive prices down.
Then came the unexpected. Following political unrest in the country, stock prices began to fall. The group found itself trapped, unable to exit without incurring losses. Around the same time, authorities began scrutinizing broker activities, particularly the practice of buying shares on credit. Investigations by the Department of Money Laundering soon reached members of the Himalayan network.
When questioned, partners say they turned to Sulabh for guidance. His advice was simple: declare that all investments were made using tax-paid funds, and there would be no issue. But as investigators dug deeper, discrepancies emerged. Funds contributed by certain individuals appeared under different names, and large advances were traced back to accounts linked to Bhatta and others. Questions also arose about whether company funds, particularly from Himalayan Reinsurance, had been misused.
The situation escalated when it became clear that the company itself owed billions by brokers, triggering an internal alarm. When board members questioned CEO Upasana Poudel about the missing funds, she reportedly said she had informed Sulabh, assuming he was effectively in charge. This revelation shocked directors, who realized that major financial decisions were being made without formal oversight.
A series of tense meetings followed. In one such gathering, Sulabh reportedly broke down, admitting mistakes and apologizing repeatedly. Witnesses say he appeared physically distressed, struggling to speak, and was eventually taken to the hospital. Meanwhile, Bhatt openly criticized him, accusing him of fraudulently using his name to purchase shares. The confrontation exposed deep cracks within the group.
As the scandal widened, attention turned to the role of other partners. Some were accused of being driven by greed, while others claimed ignorance. Investigators are now examining whether insider trading, market manipulation, or circular trading took place. Early indications suggest that certain transactions, particularly in mutual funds, may have involved coordinated trading strategies.
For many within the Himalayan network, the fallout has been deeply personal. Some partners have left the country, while others are cooperating with investigators
Political miscalculations also played a role. According to sources, Sulabh and Bhatt had anticipated a favourable election outcome that would strengthen their influence. When the results went the other way, their expected protection vanished, leaving them vulnerable to investigation.
Both men are now in custody, accusing each other of betrayal. Authorities have conducted raids at their homes, offices, and company premises, seizing documents and digital evidence. Investigators claim that trading orders were placed using Bhatt’s account from systems located at Shankar Group’s headquarters, raising further questions about internal controls.
The Department of Money Laundering is preparing to file charges in court soon. Officials say the investigation is being handled carefully, as it could implicate several prominent business figures. However, the focus remains on identifying the main architects of the scheme rather than casting a wider net that could destabilize the business environment.
For many within the Himalayan network, the fallout has been deeply personal. Some partners have left the country, while others are cooperating with investigators. What once seemed like a powerful alliance built on trust and ambition has now become a cautionary tale of unchecked power, misplaced faith, and the risks of operating in opaque financial arrangements.
As one partner put it, the greatest shock was not the financial loss but the realization that someone they trusted so completely could misuse public money on such a scale. The consensus among them is clear: accountability must follow, and those responsible must face legal consequences.
Comment Here