A statement issued on behalf of former First Lady Shiranthi Rajapaksa in June 2015, declaring that state funds had not been used to operate her Siriliya Saviya charity, has attracted renewed attention following court submissions concerning a Rs. 10 million payment from the state-owned National Savings Bank (NSB).
The statement was issued after Rajapaksa was questioned by the Financial Crimes Investigation Division over allegations concerning the charity’s finances. It described Siriliya Saviya as an organisation supported by local and foreign donations.
Eleven years later, the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) has alleged that money originally approved for a charitable hospital project was instead issued to Siriliya Saviya through an irregular banking transaction.
The payment was intended to support the purchase of a CT scanner for the Lady Ridgeway Hospital for Children in Colombo.
According to submissions made to the Colombo Chief Magistrate’s Court, the original cheque was prepared for Carlton Suwa Udana before the beneficiary was changed to Siriliya Saviya. Investigators alleged that the bank’s board of directors learned about the change only after the cheque had been deposited.
CIABOC has also alleged that money connected to the charity was used to purchase a house in Colombo’s Torrington Place.
Rajapaksa’s lawyers reject the allegation that the NSB donation was misappropriated. They maintain that the Rs. 10 million remains in the Siriliya Saviya bank account, which was frozen following a complaint in 2015.
The statement made in June 2015
Rajapaksa was questioned by the FCID on June 1, 2015, following allegations concerning the operation of Siriliya Saviya’s bank account.
In a public statement issued on her behalf, she maintained that the organisation was registered with the National Secretariat for Non-Governmental Organisations and received donations from individuals and organisations in Sri Lanka and overseas.
The statement also maintained that no state money had been used to run the charity.
The wording matters in light of the transactions now described by CIABOC.
A donation made by a state-owned bank for a particular charitable project may be accounted for differently from money used to meet an organisation’s general operating expenses. The earlier statement therefore cannot be treated as false solely because Siriliya Saviya received a payment from NSB.
Establishing whether the accounts are consistent would require the charity’s financial statements, the purpose recorded against each donation and the original terms under which the bank released the money.
The 2015 statement also referred to Carlton Suwa Udana, a charitable programme associated with projects intended to assist children and their families.
The latest court proceedings involve a payment initially intended for that programme but allegedly redirected to Siriliya Saviya.
The available public record has not established whether the transfer between the two named beneficiaries was authorised by the bodies responsible for the project.
The bank’s approval process comes under examination
CIABOC Assistant Director General Yasmada Lokunarangoda told court that the NSB payment was released following a request involving Rajapaksa and former bank chairman Pradeep Kariyawasam.
The prosecution alleged that the transaction had been carried out without the required procedures.
Kariyawasam was arrested alongside Rajapaksa on October 7, 2026, before being released on bail.
The legal authority under which NSB officers may approve payments and carry out delegated functions is relevant to the dispute.
The National Savings Bank (Amendment) Act, No. 22 of 1999 introduced Section 26A, allowing the bank’s board to delegate functions to its General Manager or other officers through resolutions subject to specified terms and conditions.
The provision also allows the board to revoke such delegations and exercise functions that have been delegated.
Whether the disputed cheque was lawfully issued depends on the authority granted to the officers involved and the bank’s approval procedures at the time.
Documents capable of establishing that authority would include the original board decision approving the donation, any resolution permitting a change of beneficiary, the relevant payment instructions and the bank’s internal records.
The publicly reported submissions do not identify who instructed NSB to alter the cheque, when that instruction was given or whether a written authorisation accompanied it.
Those details could establish whether the change occurred within an officer’s delegated authority or required another decision by the board.
The Torrington Place property allegation
The investigation has also moved beyond the payment originally intended for hospital equipment.
CIABOC alleged that funds linked to Siriliya Saviya were used to acquire a residential property in Torrington Place, Colombo.
Lokunarangoda informed court that the commission intended to seek an order freezing assets allegedly purchased using money obtained through the charity.
The allegation introduces a separate set of financial transactions that would need to be traced from the organisation’s accounts to the property’s acquisition.
The publicly disclosed information does not establish the purchase price, acquisition date or registered owner of the property.
Neither does it identify the complete transaction history on which investigators rely to connect the purchase to the charity.
Those records are necessary to distinguish money originating from the disputed NSB donation from other funds deposited into the organisation’s accounts.
President’s Counsel Anil Silva, appearing for Rajapaksa, told court that the Rs. 10 million remained in the frozen Siriliya Saviya account.
The defence maintains that the money was never misappropriated.
CIABOC’s position concerning the alleged property purchase has not been established by a final judicial determination. The available accounts also do not identify a completed financial trail proving that the particular NSB donation financed the property.
The hospital scanner was never purchased
The charity’s proposed hospital equipment project forms another part of the dispute.
According to the defence, purchasing the CT scanner would have required approximately Rs. 160 million, while Siriliya Saviya had raised only around Rs. 42 million by 2014.
Silva told court that fundraising could not continue after the organisation’s account was frozen following the complaint made in 2015.
The figures presented by the defence indicate that the proposed equipment remained beyond the amount raised at that stage.
Investigators have questioned the circumstances in which the NSB payment was obtained and the subsequent use of the funds.
The original fundraising documents would establish the equipment specification, estimated purchase price and conditions attached to donations.
Hospital procurement records would also clarify whether the proposed scanner was ever ordered, whether suppliers were approached and what arrangements had been made for its installation.
The published accounts of the proceedings do not provide those records.
Other deposits require separate examination
Investigators have also referred to additional deposits connected to Siriliya Saviya, including a reported Rs. 8.8 million payment from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Rs. 22 million received from Huawei.
These amounts widen the financial questions surrounding the charity, although the reported information does not establish that either payment was unlawful.
The ministry payment is relevant to the earlier declaration concerning state funding. Its purpose, approval process and accounting treatment would need to be established before drawing any conclusion about the 2015 statement.
The Huawei payment raises separate questions about the terms of the corporate donation and the charitable activities it was intended to support.
Receipt of a corporate donation does not itself indicate misconduct by the donor or the recipient.
The financial records would need to show how the money was received, recorded and spent.
Questions dating back to the original investigation
Siriliya Saviya first came under extensive public scrutiny in 2015 following allegations involving its bank account and the identities of individuals authorised to operate it.
Rajapaksa’s representatives disputed accusations that fictitious individuals had been named as account signatories.
They maintained that the individuals were genuine and that incorrect identity card numbers recorded in the banking system resulted from data entry errors.
The present case concerns transactions allegedly undertaken before the original investigation began.
The interval between the 2015 complaint and the October 2026 arrests raises questions about the progress of the inquiry across successive administrations.
Available accounts of the proceedings do not establish when investigators first obtained the NSB payment records or identified the Torrington Place transaction.
They also do not explain whether the latest evidence emerged from recent investigative work or had been available during earlier stages of the case.
The Financial Crimes Investigation Division and CIABOC are now conducting inquiries concerning the allegations.
Proceedings scheduled to continue on October 13
Rajapaksa was remanded until October 13 following her arrest on October 7.
Kariyawasam was granted bail with two sureties of Rs. 10 million each.
CIABOC has alleged that the NSB donation was released through an irregular approval process and that funds connected to Siriliya Saviya were subsequently used for an unrelated property purchase.
The defence maintains that the disputed donation remains in the charity’s frozen account and that the proposed hospital equipment could not be purchased because fundraising was interrupted.
No final court ruling establishing criminal liability in relation to these allegations has been reported.
The next proceedings are scheduled for Tuesday, October 13, when the case returns to court.
