THE High Court in Suva has refused the prosecution’s application seeking forfeiture of a motor vehicle owned by former military finance officer, Sarika Devi Raj.
Ms Raj was a clerical officer at the RFMF, and with an annual salary of $25,000, was responsible for ensuring public funds were received and expended in compliance with appropriations and other relevant laws, providing internal audit services, ensuring financial controls were in place, and revenue collections.
She was sacked on February 26 as a result of alleged involvement with the business Maleka Kava, Maleka Investment, and Sachin’s Kava.
It’s alleged she failed to declare her ownership in those businesses. Those businesses were added as vendors of RFMF.
Investigations started after it was alleged that fraudulent payment vouchers were made to Maleka Kava’s bank account.
FICAC alleged the payment for the vehicle in question was made from Maleka Kava’s bank account and Ms Raj had signed an offer letter with Credit Corporation for a vehicle loan of $78,000.
The prosecution alleged it was not possible for her to make the purchase through her business with Maleka Kava, as her annual salary was not enough to make repayments for the loan.
Ms Raj allegedly transferred ownership of the vehicle when she was caution-interviewed and charged by FICAC.
The prosecution alleged the vehicle was obtained through the proceeds of crime and was, therefore, tainted property.
In response, Ms Raj, represented by Suva Lawyer Mohammed Saneem, submitted that she had informed her superiors of the business operated by her son. Justice Chaitanya Lakshman, after analysing the evidence and submissions, said the investigations revealed that fraud was committed by someone else.
He held that the evidence clearly established that Ms Raj did not acquire the vehicle as a result of any serious offence committed by her.
“Kava was acquired from the business through someone else defrauding the RFMF,” stated Justice Lakshman on October 17.
It was not the defendant who raised the Local Purchase Requisition (LPR) or who is alleged to have forged the signatures of another.
The RFMF internal investigations showed that the system was defrauded by someone other than the defendant.
“The investigations also revealed that there was no collusion between the defendant and that person.”
In his ruling, he held on the balance of probability that the vehicle was not tainted property and, therefore, ordered the vehicle to be immediately released.
