The defence has asked the Suva High Court to throw out a vehicle forfeiture bid linked to former Republic of Fiji Military Forces finance officer Sarika Devi, arguing the application is out of time. Defence counsel Mohammed Saneem submitted that, under the relevant forfeiture regime, any property must be forfeited within 14 days of seizure; given that period has lapsed, he says the application cannot stand. No substantive response from FICAC was recorded at the hearing. Justice Chaitanya Lakshman has reserved a ruling for August 13.
Devi, a clerical/accounts officer who earned $25,000 annually and was dismissed in February, is accused of failing to disclose her involvement with Maleka Kava, Maleka Investment, and Sachin’s Kava—entities added as RFMF vendors. FICAC launched its probe after allegedly fraudulent payment vouchers were made to Maleka Kava’s bank account. The prosecution claims a vehicle was purchased using funds linked to that account, noting Devi signed a $78,000 vehicle loan with Credit Corporation and asserting her salary was insufficient to service the repayments, rendering the purchase suspicious. It is further alleged she transferred ownership of the vehicle after being charged, and prosecutors maintain the car is tainted property derived from the proceeds of crime.
Context from related proceedings indicates the case has a broader scope beyond the vehicle. In earlier filings, prosecutors alleged improper gains totaling $182,404.99 between September 20, 2019, and June 19, 2020, tied to non-disclosure of ownership interests in Maleka Investment while it operated as an RFMF vendor. Those matters have involved repeated disputes over disclosure timelines and court-ordered deadlines for producing documents, as well as applications to vary bail conditions. Separately, a civil forfeiture hearing on the same vehicle was previously postponed while parties sought additional records, including RFMF administrative instructions and Devi’s suspension letter.
What the court is weighing now
– If the judge agrees the 14-day window for forfeiture action has indeed expired, the application could be dismissed on procedural grounds regardless of the underlying allegations.
– If the application is found to be within time or otherwise compliant, the court will turn to whether the vehicle can be traced to alleged fraudulent proceeds and what inferences, if any, arise from the reported post-charge transfer of ownership.
Why this matters
– Forfeiture applications require strict adherence to timelines and evidentiary standards. The High Court’s scrutiny reinforces due process and clarity around asset-recovery rules.
– For the public sector, the case underscores the importance of transparent vendor relationships and disclosure controls. For the accused, a clear ruling on procedure helps define the next steps in both the forfeiture and related criminal matters.
Additional comment
The emphasis on deadlines and documentation reflects a system intent on balancing accountability with fairness. Whatever the outcome on August 13, a reasoned decision on the timing issue should help streamline subsequent proceedings and provide guidance for future forfeiture actions.
Summary
– Defence asks the High Court to dismiss FICAC’s vehicle forfeiture application, arguing the 14-day post-seizure deadline has passed.
– Ruling set for August 13; no response from FICAC was noted in court.
– Allegations involve undisclosed links to RFMF vendors and claims the vehicle was funded from accounts tied to fraudulent vouchers; prosecutors cite a $78,000 loan as inconsistent with a $25,000 salary.
– Related proceedings reference alleged improper gains of $182,404.99 and earlier disclosure disputes, highlighting ongoing judicial oversight of both process and substance.
Leave a comment