राष्ट्र बैंकद्वारा तीन वाणिज्य बैंकलाई कारबाही. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting mainly one side’s perspective or information while giving little or no space to other relevant sides.

The article details Nepal Rastra Bank’s accusations and sanctions in depth, quoting the legal basis and inspection findings, but provides no comment, explanation, or rebuttal from the three banks: - “नेपाल राष्ट्र बैंक ऐन तथा एकीकृत निर्देशनविपरीत काम गरेको आरोपमा एनआइसी एसिया बैंक लिमिटेड, ग्लोबल आइएमई बैंक लिमिटेड र नेपाल इन्भेष्टमेन्ट मेगा बैंक लिमिटेड कारबाहीमा परेका हुन्।” - Long, detailed paragraphs describe NIC Asia’s repeated violations, Global IME’s inadequate provisioning and software issues, and Nepal Investment Mega’s documentation and interest rate practices, all from the regulator’s documents. - Nowhere does the article mention whether the banks accept, contest, or explain these findings, or whether they have taken corrective measures.

3 suggestions

Include responses or statements from each of the three banks (NIC Asia, Global IME, Nepal Investment Mega) regarding the sanctions, e.g., whether they accept the findings, plan to appeal, or have already implemented corrective actions.

Clarify whether the banks were contacted for comment and, if they did not respond, explicitly state that (e.g., “बैंकले यसबारे टिप्पणी गर्न नमानेको जनायो” or “प्रतिक्रिया लिन खोज्दा बैंकबाट कुनै प्रतिक्रिया प्राप्त भएन”).

Provide brief contextual information on how common such regulatory actions are in the sector, so readers can understand whether these cases are exceptional or part of routine enforcement.

Omission of key information

Leaving out relevant facts that would help readers fully understand the situation.

The article reports the sanctions and the specific violations but omits several pieces of context that would help readers assess the gravity and implications: - No information on the time period over which NIC Asia allegedly “बारम्बार उल्लंघन” occurred, or whether prior warnings or lesser sanctions were issued. - No mention of the potential or actual impact on customers or the financial system (e.g., whether customers’ deposits or services were affected, or whether this is mainly a compliance/technical issue). - No comparison with other banks or past similar cases to indicate whether these violations are unusually serious. These omissions do not make the article false, but they limit readers’ ability to contextualize the seriousness of the actions.

3 suggestions

Specify the time frame of the violations (e.g., which fiscal years or quarters the repeated non-compliance by NIC Asia covers).

Add a short explanation of the practical implications of the cited violations (e.g., what inadequate loan-loss provisioning or improper documentation could mean for risk, customers, or the banking system).

Mention whether similar actions have been taken against other banks in the recent past, to show whether this is part of a broader regulatory tightening or an isolated case.

Appeal to authority

Relying on the authority of an institution or person as the primary basis for accepting a claim, without additional evidence or scrutiny.

The article heavily relies on Nepal Rastra Bank’s documents and statements as the sole source of facts: - “राष्ट्र बैंकले आज सार्वजनिक गरेको चालु आर्थिक वर्षको दोस्रो त्रैमासिक अवधिमा भएको कारबाहीको विवरणमा उल्लेख छ।” - Each allegation (e.g., repeated violation of directives, inadequate provisioning, software allowing re-creation of loans, lack of signatures, interest rate differentials) is presented only as found in NRB’s inspection reports, with no independent verification or alternative perspective. While NRB is a legitimate authority, presenting its findings as unquestioned fact without any other source or scrutiny is a mild form of appeal to authority.

3 suggestions

Explicitly attribute contested or evaluative statements to NRB, using wording that makes clear they are findings or allegations, e.g., “राष्ट्र बैंकको निरीक्षण प्रतिवेदनअनुसार…” or “राष्ट्र बैंकका अनुसार…”, rather than implying they are established facts beyond dispute.

Where possible, supplement NRB’s claims with independent expert commentary (e.g., banking law experts or independent analysts) explaining or assessing the seriousness of the violations.

Clarify whether the banks have the right to appeal or contest NRB’s findings and whether any such process is underway.