FINANCIAL CHRONICLE – SriLankan Airlines, the state-operated airline, has fallen victim to two separate financial fraud schemes involving cybercrime and document forgery, as confirmed by two sources and the Deputy Finance Minister.
The financially struggling airline transferred $265,000 (equivalent to 954,000 UAE Dirhams or approximately 80 million Sri Lankan Rupees) to an incorrect account. This error occurred after receiving an email directive from an agent based in Dubai, instructing the deposit of funds into an alternative bank account. A source familiar with the investigation indicated that the agent’s email had been compromised, leading the perpetrator to manipulate the situation.
The second incident of fraud was uncovered at the SriLankan Airlines office in Chennai, where three Indian nationals previously employed in the South Indian branch embezzled funds amounting to 22,000 Indian Rupees (around 80 million Sri Lankan Rupees) by utilizing counterfeit documents.
According to a second source, Indian law enforcement is currently investigating this case. Sri Lanka has recently experienced multiple instances of financial fraud, including a significant $2.5 million theft from the Treasury through cyber intrusion and another $625,000 loss from the Postal Department.
Deputy Finance Minister Anil Jayantha stated that investigations into both fraud cases are ongoing. He assured reporters that any potential lapses or issues within the government would be thoroughly examined, and relevant information would be disclosed promptly. “The Dubai agent has communicated with SriLankan Airlines, claiming that the issue lies within our system, but they are conducting their own investigation to determine the facts,” he added.
Minister Jayantha emphasized that the funds were indeed transferred by SriLankan Airlines to an incorrect recipient rather than the intended agent. He noted that employees at the Chennai office had falsified documents to misappropriate funds. “These cases are being investigated independently. The first case is clearly linked to the agent, while the second involves fraudulent activities by an employee,” he concluded.
