Shs219bn Crane Bank Dispute: Sudhir Challenges BoU’s Move to Hold Former Shareholders Liable

Businessman Dr Sudhir Ruparelia has challenged the Bank of Uganda’s attempt to hold former Crane Bank shareholders responsible for Shs219.459 billion in disputed expenditure.

Ruparelia argues that the former shareholders cannot be held personally liable for spending incurred after the central bank took control of the lender. The matter is now before Parliament as legislators examine the outstanding receivable.

The dispute emerged before Parliament’s Committee on Commissions, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (COSASE), chaired by Kyadondo East MP Muwada Nkunyingi.

The committee questioned Bank of Uganda Governor Michael Atingi-Ego over Shs219.459 billion recorded as an outstanding receivable in the central bank’s financial statements as of June 30, 2025.

BoU Says Crane Bank Owes the Money

While appearing before MPs, Atingi-Ego maintained that the money is recoverable from Crane Bank and its shareholders.

He explained that Crane Bank experienced serious liquidity challenges before its takeover. The lender repeatedly sought financial assistance from the central bank.

According to the governor, Crane Bank requested approximately Shs466 billion through the lender-of-last-resort facility. It reportedly offered its branch network as security.

Atingi-Ego further explained that additional financial support became necessary after the takeover. This followed the maturity of obligations, including letters of credit and other commitments.

He said the bank’s accounts lacked sufficient funds to meet those obligations. He maintained that BoU provided the necessary support and properly documented the transactions.

The governor also told MPs that the matter had previously featured in investigations by the Auditor General and COSASE.

Sudhir Questions Shareholders’ Liability

However, Ruparelia strongly contests the central bank’s position.

In correspondence presented before the committee, he argued that BoU took control of Crane Bank on October 20, 2016. The former board and shareholders consequently lost control of the institution.

He questioned how shareholders could be held accountable for financial obligations arising from decisions they neither made nor participated in.

Ruparelia maintained that any outstanding receivable arising from the intervention should be pursued against Crane Bank Limited as a corporate entity.

He argued that former shareholders should not bear personal responsibility for expenditure incurred under BoU’s management.

He also told the committee that former directors and shareholders never received a comprehensive account of how the bank operated after the takeover.

Consequently, he argued that BoU and its statutory manager are better positioned to explain the disputed expenditure.

Earlier Court Battles Revisited

Ruparelia also reminded legislators of previous legal battles between his interests and the central bank.

He referred to court proceedings in which he said BoU lost appeals.

However, the Shs219.459 billion claim remains a separate dispute requiring independent legal and financial examination.

The central question is whether the former shareholders can legally be held responsible for obligations arising after the central bank assumed control.

London Litigation Raises Fresh Concerns

The parliamentary proceedings also touched on ongoing litigation in London involving Crane Bank’s former shareholders and dfcu Bank.

The case concerns the transfer of Crane Bank’s assets.

Atingi-Ego cautioned MPs against making statements that could affect the foreign proceedings. He noted that some issues under parliamentary examination also feature in the London litigation.

COSASE said it would continue examining the matter. The committee intends to scrutinise supporting financial records and consider explanations from both BoU and the former shareholders.

Parliament is also considering involving the Ministry of Finance in addressing issues arising from Crane Bank’s closure.

The Shs219bn Question Remains

No final determination has been made regarding responsibility for the disputed amount.

Nearly a decade after Crane Bank’s takeover, the Shs219.459 billion claim remains a contentious issue between the central bank and the former shareholders.

As COSASE continues its investigations, the central question remains whether the outstanding money is legally recoverable from Crane Bank, its former shareholders, or another responsible party.