-By LeN Investigative Correspondent
(Lanka-e-News -20.July.2025, 8.30 PM) As the dust continues to settle on one of Sri Lanka’s most turbulent political decades, new revelations have surfaced about the shadowy intersections between big business and politics—this time involving a prominent apparel magnate, undeclared campaign funds, and Sri Lanka’s former president, Gotabaya Rajapaksa.
According to leaked messages seen by Lanka E-News and confirmed by a high-level source familiar with both parties, a non-ethnically Sri Lankan apparel mogul, born on the island but of foreign descent, is alleged to have channeled vast sums of unaccounted cash into Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s 2019 presidential campaign. The messages appear to show the tycoon informing Rajapaksa personally of his “contributions,” which reportedly flowed via a covert legal fixer with long-standing ties to the Rajapaksa security apparatus—a man with a tainted past, linked to enforced disappearances and extra-judicial operations during the war.
Now, the scandal—nicknamed by insiders as the “Brandix Backchannel”—has sparked renewed calls for a forensic audit into campaign financing, money laundering probes, and a review of Sri Lanka’s lax political donation laws.
The businessman at the heart of this growing controversy is widely known in Sri Lanka’s apparel export sector. Head of a conglomerate that benefits handsomely from preferential trade access under GSP+ with the EU and GSP with the US, his company has long marketed itself as a global ethical brand, with sustainability reports, carbon-neutral facilities, and equal opportunity hiring.
But his public persona may hide another reality.
Though born in Colombo, the tycoon is not ethnically Sri Lankan, and his parents migrated to the island several decades ago. Privately, he is said to describe himself as an “international citizen.” He has held permanent residency abroad for years and maintains business arms in the United States and Singapore.
Sources familiar with his dealings say the mogul maintains a chameleon-like identity, navigating Sri Lankan politics when convenient and disappearing behind a “neutral corporate façade” when scrutiny mounts. Now, evidence suggests that neutrality may have been compromised.
“He always had a foot in both camps: global in branding, but intimately local when it came to influence,” says a former senior executive at one of his factories. “What we didn’t know was just how far the influence went.”
According to messages allegedly exchanged in late 2019—now in the possession of a whistleblower who has provided them to multiple international organisations—the apparel tycoon directly communicated with Gotabaya Rajapaksa during the latter’s campaign, confirming substantial financial assistance. The contributions, allegedly amounting to hundreds of millions of rupees, were said to be given in cash, away from banks, books, or audits.
The mechanism of this delivery is equally alarming: routed through a well-known Muslim legal consultant, who previously acted as a behind-the-scenes fixer for the Rajapaksa family during the conflict years. This individual is said to have had close links to military intelligence operations, raising concerns about deep state connections to financial networks.
“It wasn’t just about helping a campaign,” said one Colombo-based political strategist familiar with the Rajapaksa camp. “It was about ensuring future protection, positioning, and access. The Rajapaksas always rewarded loyalty—and cash.”
Despite the alleged size and frequency of the contributions, none of the payments appeared on any official campaign finance disclosures. Nor were they reported to the Election Commission or the Department of Inland Revenue. Sri Lanka’s campaign finance laws, often considered toothless, make no requirement for real-time disclosure of political donations, particularly from non-party actors.
This opacity has allowed powerful individuals to underwrite campaigns in cash, without oversight.
“If true, this is an egregious abuse of Sri Lanka’s financial and democratic systems,” said a senior official at the Bribery Commission, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “You’re looking at possible tax evasion, illicit cross-border transfers, and undeclared foreign influence.”
The question now being asked is simple: Where did the money come from, and why was it not declared?
The apparel tycoon’s company maintains a significant presence in the United States, where it operates both as a sourcing agent and manufacturer. It also enjoys GSP trade preferences, allowing duty-free access to U.S. markets—a privilege that comes with obligations under U.S. Treasury Department’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).
Legal experts suggest that if any portion of the funds were routed through the company’s U.S. operations—or involved U.S.-linked capital—this could trigger a federal investigation.
“Under the FCPA, U.S.-linked entities are prohibited from engaging in or facilitating bribery of foreign officials, including through campaign financing,” says Mark Delaney, an anti-money laundering attorney based in Washington D.C. “If this company funneled money into a foreign election in exchange for political favours, there could be serious consequences.”
Already, there are unconfirmed reports that certain U.S.-based investors in the apparel conglomerate have raised concerns internally, prompting a compliance audit.
Perhaps most controversial is the fact that the apparel group—despite its global reach and billionaire valuation—has benefited enormously from Sri Lankan taxpayer subsidies, duty exemptions, and BOI (Board of Investment) concessions. Some analysts suggest the contributions to the Gotabaya campaign were effectively “kickbacks in disguise”, meant to preserve favourable treatment and regulatory leniency.
This includes:
Preferential land allocations in Export Processing Zones
Tax holidays and import duty waivers
Export incentives under the Strategic Development Projects Act
In other words, ordinary Sri Lankan taxpayers may have indirectly funded a political campaign that later contributed to their own economic misery.
A Legal Loophole – or a Criminal Offence?
While Sri Lankan law does not explicitly bar citizens from making political donations, it does require disclosure of campaign funds above certain thresholds. More importantly, all political campaign contributions must originate from declared sources—something clearly in question here.
If the funds were indeed delivered in cash, and outside the formal banking system, they may have breached multiple local statutes, including:
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act (2006)
The Exchange Control Act
The Presidential Elections (Expenses) Regulations
Legal experts are calling on the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) to immediately open an inquiry into the matter.
What makes the story more complex—and darker—is the tycoon’s reputation for boasting about political access. Multiple industry figures recall hearing him claim ties not just to Gotabaya Rajapaksa, but to current Western Province officials, including a now-suspended provincial governor. He also once claimed that he had “life-long access” to Anura Kumara Dissanayake—a statement dismissed by NPP sources as “nonsensical fiction.”
Privately, some allege that the tycoon’s political contributions were not motivated by ideology but purely transactional interest: access to tax files, port permits, BOI approval pipelines, and protection from customs scrutiny.
The tycoon’s background has come under scrutiny not just because of his contributions, but because of questions about his national allegiance. Born in Colombo, but of Memon descent, his family migrated from India in the post-independence period and maintains deep commercial roots in the regional logistics sector.
While ethnicity should never be used to discredit individuals, some critics argue that his self-declared foreign identity—alongside a willingness to interfere in local politics—makes his involvement especially problematic.
“You can’t live like a foreigner, avoid taxes, and then inject black money into our democracy,” said one MP allied with the NPP. “That’s not citizenship. That’s colonial behaviour.”
In light of these revelations, there are growing calls for a complete overhaul of Sri Lanka’s campaign financing laws. Suggestions include:
Mandatory real-time disclosures of donations over Rs. 500,000
Forensic audits of major campaign contributors
Banning foreign-funded entities or individuals with foreign residency from political donations
Enhanced CIABOC powers to prosecute unregistered campaign funding
So far, the government has not formally responded to the allegations against the apparel tycoon. But insiders confirm that a confidential file has now been opened at the Bribery Commission, and the Department of Inland Revenue is examining the tycoon’s personal and corporate tax records from 2018–2021.
Gotabaya Rajapaksa may no longer be in power, but the financial and political architecture that supported him continues to cast a long shadow. The case of the apparel tycoon is not just about one man or one company. It is about an entrenched culture of power, privilege, and impunity, where those with capital can rewrite the rules of democracy—often with no consequences.
If Sri Lanka is to build a new political future, it must begin by interrogating its past—with honesty, transparency, and courage.
-By LeN Investigative Correspondent
---------------------------
by (2025-07-20 15:02:55)
Read 12096 Times
Leave a Reply
0 discussion on this news