Anil Jayantha Fernando, Deputy Minister of Finance, told Parliament that Sri Lanka’s creditors are unlikely to classify the recent USD 2.5 million Treasury fund diversion as a technical debt default, based on advice from the government’s financial and legal advisors involved in the debt restructuring process.
Responding to questions raised by Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa, Fernando said the incident is expected to be treated as a cybercrime rather than a failure or refusal by the government to meet its debt obligations.
He explained that although the funds remitted by Sri Lanka were not received by the Australian creditor, it does not indicate any inability or reluctance on the part of the government to repay its debts. Given the close ties between Sri Lanka and Australia, and the nature of the incident, advisors believe that Australia and members of the Paris Club are unlikely to view it as a debt default.
Fernando said debt restructuring advisors had been consulted to assess whether the incident could amount to a technical default, while investigations continue into the nature of the fraud.
Outlining the timeline, he noted that the Sri Lanka Computer Emergency Readiness Team (CERT) was informed on January 9, 2026, with the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) copied on the same day. The creditor, Export Finance Australia, notified Sri Lankan authorities on March 23 that the funds had not been received.
The following day, the Director General of the External Resources Department lodged a complaint with the CID, while the Financial Intelligence Unit of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka was informed on April 1.
Fernando rejected allegations that the government had withheld information from Parliament, stating there was no attempt to conceal facts. He said authorities waited until more details emerged through investigations, particularly regarding possible internal lapses and individuals involved.
He assured that all findings would be presented to Parliament once investigations are complete.
Premadasa questioned why Parliament had not been informed earlier, given the timeline of events.
Addressing public speculation over the death of a ministry official linked to the case, Fernando urged both the opposition and the media to avoid spreading unverified claims. This followed queries by Premadasa on whether the deceased official was the first to detect and report the fund diversion.
Fernando declined to confirm or deny the claim, warning that such speculation could mislead the public and create unnecessary concern.
He added that investigations by the CID, involving the Finance Ministry’s External Resources Department and the Public Debt Management Office, are ongoing, and emphasized that the continued service of the ministry secretary would not hinder an impartial inquiry.
“I am not prepared to present baseless information until investigations are complete,” he said.
