THE High Court has restrained the transfer of a multimillion-dollar Nasese property and frozen more than $1.3 million held in a BRED Bank account after finding there were reasonable grounds to believe the assets were linked to alleged criminal offending under investigation by the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC).
In reasons for an ex-tempore ruling, Acting Justice Penijamini Lomaloma granted FICAC’s application for restraining orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act, preventing the Registrar of Titles from registering the transfer of the Domain, Suva property and ordering BRED Bank to freeze an account belonging to the second respondent, Raijieli Naituku Chand.
The proceedings relate to Stephen Shalen Chand, who previously served as Chairman of the Higher Education Commission of Fiji before later being appointed Interim Director.
FICAC alleges he maintained financial relationships connected to a training institution while continuing to participate in official decisions relating to the institution’s registration.
Justice Lomaloma said the investigation concerns alleged offences including abuse of office, with FICAC also considering charges of obtaining a financial advantage and money laundering.
“I find the offences to be serious as defined in section 4 of the Proceeds of Crime Act,” he said in his June 26 ruling.
The court heard that the property, valued at $3.6 million, was sold in May 2026. After the mortgage was discharged, more than $1.35 million was deposited into Stephen Chand’s BRED Bank account before $1.31 million was transferred to an account held by Raijieli Naituku Chand.
Justice Lomaloma found there was sufficient evidence at this stage to conclude the property was “tainted property” under the Proceeds of Crime Act.
“There is strong direct evidence from which inferences can be drawn to charge the First Respondent of the offence of Abuse of Office… There is also strong direct evidence and circumstantial evidence to trace the funds obtained from the offence to the repayment of the mortgage on the Property.”
The judge further ruled that although the property had already been sold, the proceeds could still be traced using equitable legal principles.
“Using the legal remedy of tracing, I am satisfied on reasonable grounds that those funds deposited into the Second Respondent’s Bred Bank Account are proceeds from the sale of the tainted property and the funds are therefore tainted property.”
Justice Lomaloma ordered the Registrar of Titles not to register the transfer of the property or any further dealings until further order of the court. BRED Bank was also directed to immediately freeze the specified account and provide FICAC with bank statements relating to the account.
The restraining orders will remain in force until further orders of the High Court, with leave granted for an appeal to be filed within 21 days of service of the orders.
