High Court hearing: Defense seeks dismissal of FICAC vehicle forfeiture over former RFMF officer’s car; ruling due August 29
Suva – A Suva lawyer has asked the High Court to dismiss Fiji’s anti-corruption agency’s civil forfeiture bid over a vehicle linked to former Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) clerical accounts officer Sarika Devi Raj. Mohammed Saneem, appearing for Raj, argued that FICAC’s application should be struck out because it was filed outside the statutory forfeiture window, and because the court should not tolerate delays in prosecution of such actions. The court had previously been told that FICAC’s office did not appear at the August 13 hearing, prompting the judge to reserve the matter for a ruling.
Background on the case indicates Devi Raj’s role with the RFMF involved overseeing public funds, compliance with appropriations, internal audits, financial controls and revenue collection. She was dismissed amid allegations she failed to disclose ownership in Maleka Kava, Maleka Investment and Sachin’s Kava, entities later registered as RFMF vendors. Investigations were sparked by claims that fraudulent payment vouchers were issued to Maleka Kava’s bank account. Prosecutors contend the vehicle in question was purchased with funds tied to that account, with Devi Raj signing a $78,000 loan agreement with Credit Corporation. Given her reported annual salary of about $25,000, prosecutors argue the loan appears disproportionate to her income, suggesting a link to the proceeds of crime. It is also alleged that she transferred ownership of the vehicle after being cautioned, interviewed and charged, and that the vehicle qualifies as tainted property.
In addition to the outright forfeiture claim, related court filings paint a broader picture: prosecutors have highlighted undisclosed gains of approximately $182,404.99 between September 2019 and June 2020 connected to Maleka Investment’s dealings as an RFMF vendor. The case has included disputes over disclosure timelines and court deadlines for producing documents, along with applications to vary bail conditions. Earlier civil forfeiture proceedings for the same vehicle have been postponed while the parties sought further records, including RFMF administrative instructions and Devi Raj’s suspension letter.
What the court is weighing now
– If the judge determines the 14-day window for forfeiture action has expired, the civil forfeiture application could be dismissed on procedural grounds regardless of the underlying allegations.
– If the application is deemed timely, the court will assess whether the vehicle can be linked to alleged fraudulent proceeds and consider potential inferences from Devi Raj’s post-charge transfer of ownership.
Why this matters
– Forfeiture actions hinge on strict timelines and rigorous evidentiary standards. The High Court’s handling reinforces due process and clarity around asset-recovery rules.
– For the public sector, the case underscores the importance of transparent vendor relationships and robust disclosure controls. For the accused, a clear ruling on procedural timing helps guide the next steps in both forfeiture and related criminal matters.
Additional commentary
The emphasis on deadlines and documentary disclosure reflects a system focused on accountability while safeguarding fairness. Whatever the ruling, a clear decision on timing will help streamline subsequent proceedings and set guidance for future forfeiture actions in Fiji.
Summary of key points
– Defense argues the 14-day post-seizure forfeiture deadline has passed, asking the court to dismiss FICAC’s vehicle-forfeiture bid.
– Justice Chaitanya Lakshman is expected to issue a ruling on August 29 after FICAC did not appear at the August 13 hearing.
– Allegations include undisclosed ownership in Maleka-linked entities, fraudulent vouchers tied to Maleka Kava, a $78,000 loan for the vehicle, and a post-charge transfer of ownership.
– Related filings reference improper gains of about $182,404.99 and ongoing disputes over disclosure and document production.
Leave a comment