The Central Bureau of Investigation has begun an inquiry into alleged financial misconduct involving Sonam Wangchuk, a prominent climate activist and educator from Ladakh, along with his associated organizations. This investigation is centered on suspected violations of foreign contribution regulations and financial irregularities found in multiple entities linked to Wangchuk. Authorities are scrutinizing three primary organizations associated with him: the Himalayan Institute of Alternatives, Ladakh (HIAL), the Students’ Educational and Cultural Movement of Ladakh (SECMOL), and his private firm Sheshyon Innovations Pvt Ltd (SIPL). The focus of the probe includes potential breaches of financial and regulatory guidelines, particularly concerning international funding and monetary transfers.
This inquiry comes amid rising tensions in Ladakh, where recent clashes between police and protesters advocating for full statehood resulted in four deaths and numerous injuries. The Union home ministry has linked the violence to provocative remarks made by Wangchuk, who had been conducting a hunger strike since September 10 but ended it following the outbreak of violence. Investigations indicate that HIAL saw a significant increase in donations, soaring from ₹6 crore in the 2023-24 financial year to over ₹15 crore in 2024-25. Officials allege that four out of seven bank accounts belonging to the institute were not duly reported to authorities.
The organization reportedly garnered over ₹1.5 crore in international remittances without proper registration under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), raising potential violations. Furthermore, investigators have identified a large transfer of around ₹6.5 crore from HIAL to Wangchuk’s private firm, Sheshyon Innovations. SECMOL, which was founded in 1988 to transform Ladakh’s educational landscape, is accused of operating nine bank accounts, with six of them not reported to authorities. The organization is suspected of misappropriating domestic funds into its FCRA-designated account between 2020-21 and 2022-23, which would breach Section 17 of the FCRA.
Sheshyon Innovations, where both Wangchuk and his spouse are directors, experienced a sharp decrease in profit margins during the 2024-25 financial year, dropping to 1.14% on a turnover of ₹9.85 crore, down from 6.13% the previous year. The firm is said to have three accounts, two of which were not disclosed to authorities. The transfer of ₹6.5 crore from HIAL to Sheshyon, including international funds, has raised concerns among investigators. Officials suspect that a new account opened in 2023 may have been created to absorb HIAL’s surplus reserves without corresponding operational activities. Personal financial records indicate that Wangchuk has nine individual bank accounts, with eight allegedly undeclared.
Between 2018 and 2024, he reportedly received ₹1.68 crore in foreign remittances through these accounts. From 2021 to 2024, officials allege he transferred approximately ₹3.23 crore abroad, potentially raising issues under anti-money laundering laws. Additional violations include HIAL’s receipt of ₹1.63 crore in foreign funds via an HDFC account, despite the Ministry of Home Affairs rejecting its FCRA registration in 2020. The organization’s audited financial statements for 2020-21 and 2021-22 reportedly indicated zero foreign earnings, contradicting actual inflows of ₹23 lakh and ₹47.6 lakh respectively. These inconsistencies may constitute violations under the Companies Act (Sections 447 and 129) and the Indian Penal Code Section 467.
When approached by the PTI news agency, Wangchuk confirmed that a CBI team had visited HIAL and SECMOL the previous week, seeking details on foreign funds received between 2022 and 2024. He stated that the investigation order indicated his organizations had not acquired the necessary FCRA clearance for receiving international funds. Wangchuk asserted that his organizations prefer to remain independent of foreign funding, instead generating revenue through the export of knowledge and expertise. He claimed that in three specific cases, authorities incorrectly interpreted legitimate revenue as foreign contributions subject to FCRA regulations.