Sri Lanka’s creditors were unlikely to classify the recent USD 2.5 million Treasury fund heist as a technical debt default, Deputy Minister of Finance Anil Jayantha Fernando told Parliament yesterday (05), citing assessments by the Government’s financial and legal advisors engaged in the debt restructuring process.

Responding to queries raised by Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa, Fernando said the incident is expected to be treated as a cybercrime matter rather than a failure or refusal by the State to honour its debt obligations.

“Although the funds remitted by Sri Lanka were not received by the Australian creditor, this does not indicate an inability or unwillingness on the part of the Government to repay,” he said, adding that given the nature of the incident and Sri Lanka’s relations with Australia, advisors believe neither Australia nor Paris Club members are likely to deem it a debt default.

Fernando said debt restructuring advisors had been consulted on whether the episode could amount to a technical default, while investigations are continuing to establish the nature of the alleged fraud.

Outlining the sequence of events, he said the Sri Lanka Computer Emergency Readiness Team was notified on January 9, 2026, with the Criminal Investigation Department also informed the same day. He said Australia Export Finance later notified Sri Lankan authorities on March 23 that the funds had not been received. A complaint was subsequently lodged with the CID by the Director General of the External Resources Department on March 24, while the Financial Intelligence Unit was informed on April 1.

Rejecting allegations that the Government had withheld information from Parliament, Fernando said there had been no attempt to suppress facts, noting that disclosure had been delayed pending further clarity from ongoing investigations, particularly regarding possible official involvement and internal control lapses.

He assured that all findings would be presented to Parliament in due course.

Premadasa questioned the delay in informing the House, given the timeline of events.

Fernando also cautioned against unverified speculation surrounding the death of a Ministry official linked to the incident, urging both the Opposition and the media to refrain from disseminating unsubstantiated claims.

Responding to claims raised by Premadasa that the deceased official was the first to detect and report the fund diversion, Fernando declined to confirm or deny the assertion, warning that such speculation could mislead the public and aggravate the situation.

He said investigations by the CID, in collaboration with the Finance Ministry’s External Resources Department and the Public Debt Management Office, are ongoing, adding that the continued service of the Ministry Secretary would not impede impartial inquiries.

“I am not prepared to present unverified information until investigations are concluded,” he added.

By Saman Indrajith