Details of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption’s (FICAC) investigation into former Higher Education Commission of Fiji chairman Stephen Chand have been revealed in a High Court ruling delivered by acting Justice Penijamini Lomaloma on June 26.
The ruling sets out the evidence relied upon by FICAC in obtaining restraining orders over a Nasese Domain property in Suva and more than $1.3million held in a BRED Bank account pending the outcome of the proceedings.
According to the judgment, FICAC initially sought an ex-parte restraining order over the property in May. However, during a court hearing on May 19, counsel for FICAC informed the court that the property had been sold the previous day.
Following further investigations, FICAC filed an amended application supported by a supplementary affidavit sworn by investigator Jone Manu.
Acting Justice Lomaloma directed that the Registrar of Titles, the property’s purchaser and BRED Bank be added as parties before the matter proceeded on June 25.
The ruling outlines a series of financial transactions identified during the investigation.
Court documents show the Nasese Domain property was registered in the names of Steven Chand and his wife in July 2017 and was later sold for $3.6million under a sale and purchase agreement signed in December 2025.
After the Westpac mortgage was discharged in May this year, $1,353,127.36 was deposited into Mr Chand’s BRED Bank account. Six days later, $1.31million was withdrawn and transferred into his wife’s BRED Bank account, where the balance stood at $1,308,290.40 on June 6, the court ruling states.
Acting Justice Lomaloma noted that the court had sighted documentary evidence of the transactions, including land title records, bank deposit slips and withdrawal slips attached to the supplementary affidavit.
The judgment also outlines the allegations underpinning FICAC’s investigation.
According to the ruling, Mr Chand served as chairman of the Higher Education Commission of Fiji from April 2023 before later becoming interim director.
The court said Australian Pacific Management and Training Pty Ltd (APMT) was registered in July 2024 and was associated with an individual identified in the ruling.
Acting Justice Lomaloma said FICAC alleges Mr Chand maintained financial relationships connected to APMT and related entities while continuing to participate in official decision-making concerning the institution’s registration.
The ruling states that the alleged wrongdoing centres on Mr Chand’s continued involvement in official decisions despite allegedly receiving financial benefits connected to those functions.
The court further records that FICAC alleges remittances totalling $322,468.09 were received by the first respondent between October 2024 and February 2026 from RJ Global Investments Pty Ltd and associated entities connected to APMT.
According to the judgment, the funds were deposited into HFC and BSP bank accounts, and investigators believe part of those funds was used to reduce the mortgage on the Nasese Domain property.
The registration of the transfer had not been completed by the Registrar of Titles when FICAC filed its application.
After considering the evidence, acting Justice Lomaloma ruled that, on the balance of probabilities for the purposes of the restraining application, the property constituted “tainted property” under the Proceeds of Crime Act.
The judge further held that although the property had already been sold, the proceeds could be traced using equitable principles.
The ruling found there were reasonable grounds to believe that the $1.31million transferred into the second respondent’s BRED Bank account represented proceeds from the sale of the tainted property and could, therefore, be restrained.
Acting Justice Lomaloma ordered the Registrar of Titles not to register the transfer of the Nasese Domain property or any further dealings with it until further order of the court.
The court also ordered BRED Bank to immediately freeze the second respondent’s account, prohibit any transactions involving the funds and provide FICAC with the relevant bank statements.
The restraining orders will remain in force pending further orders of the High Court.
