A controversial political claim alleges the Treasury fraud was not a cyberattack but a calculated internal transfer, raising serious questions about accountability, governance, and financial oversight in Sri Lanka.
The alleged $2.5 million financial fraud linked to Sri Lanka’s Treasury during foreign debt repayments has taken a dramatic turn, with former Member of Parliament Udaya Gammanpila asserting that the incident was not a cyberattack but a deliberate internal operation.
Speaking on the controversy, Gammanpila stressed that the issue cannot be dismissed as a technical glitch or an external hacking incident, but must be examined as a possible case of intentional financial manipulation within the Treasury system.
According to his explanation, the transfer occurred after the original bank account details of the creditor institution were altered through an email communication, resulting in funds being redirected to a different account during the repayment process.
He further emphasized that there was no evidence of a breach occurring during the actual transaction process, suggesting instead that the payment had passed through official approval channels, with government officers authorizing the transfer to the modified account.
Gammanpila also questioned the rationale behind making such a payment to an institution in Australia, particularly at a time when most bilateral debt repayments had been suspended, except for those involving multilateral creditors.
Highlighting the unusual nature of the transaction, he noted that similar incidents have not been recorded in the past, and argued that any reasonable observer would suspect that the funds may have ultimately been directed to a local account, specifically referencing Pelawatte.
He further alleged that previous warnings issued by the Central Bank regarding risks associated with third party payments had been ignored, raising concerns about possible negligence or intentional misconduct within the financial administration.
The failure of the government to disclose this incident to Parliament or inform the Auditor General in a timely manner has also come under criticism, with Gammanpila stating that such secrecy undermines transparency and public trust.
Dismissing the government’s justification that withholding information was necessary to protect ongoing investigations, he described the explanation as unconvincing, questioning how public disclosure of a financial transfer could obstruct investigative procedures.
He reiterated that financial accountability ultimately lies with Parliament, and argued that President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, in his capacity as Minister of Finance, bears responsibility for the lack of transparency surrounding the incident.
He also pointed to the role of the Secretary to the Ministry of Finance, suggesting that there has been a failure to uphold administrative responsibility in handling the matter.
Gammanpila concluded by stating that pursuing complaints through the Criminal Investigation Department or the Bribery Commission may not be sufficient, and called on the opposition to consider initiating a no confidence motion against the Minister of Finance over the controversy.
