FICAC’S $4.1M CASE TRANSFERRED TO HIGH COURT
The Magistrates Court in Suva has transferred a $4.1 million alleged serious fraud case to the High Court. Suspended Fiji Revenue and Customs Service (FCRS) Chief Ethical Standard Unit Officer and the Director Intelligence, Compliance and Investigations Shameem Khan is charged by Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) with one count of abuse of office and one count of general dishonesty causing a loss.
He appeared before Magistrate Deepika Prakash yesterday.
The Charges:
For the abuse of office charge, it is alleged that Khan, between January 1, 2016 and May 5, 2017, while being employed as the Chief Ethical Standard Unit Officer and the Director Intelligence, Compliance and Investigations respectively at Fiji Revenue and Customs Services (FRCS) made an arbitrary act for the gain in abuse of his office. This was preparing an investigation report with false contents and preventing FRCS in obtaining revenue of $4,118,994.08. For the general dishonesty causing a loss charge, it is alleged that between January 1, 2016 and May 5, 2017, Khan dishonestly caused a loss to the FRCS of a sum of $4,118,994.08 and he knew or believed that the loss would occur or there was a substantial risk of loss occurring.
FICAC’s motion for transfer of matter:
FICAC had filed a motion and offered reasons in affidavit in support that it was a serious fraud case and contained multiple complex legal and factual issues which involved the issuance of a Tax Free Region Licence and breaches of the FRCS rules and regulations and other such related issues, the amount involved was $4,118,994.08, there were voluminous documents involved and trial could take few weeks or months, the nature of the high public office held by the accused, the length of time of the offending and public interest.
Defence opposition:
The reasons for opposing FICAC’s motion by the defence were:
■ The offence of abuse of office was an indictable offence which was triable summarily and the offence of general dishonesty causing a loss was a summary offence and the magistrates court had jurisdiction to deal with both counts;
■ That the accused elected a magistrates’ court trial in respect of the abuse of office charge, that the application was filed six months after the accused was first produced in court;
■ That the documents were not voluminous and contained in one folder; and
■ There were delay by FICAC in filing the application for transfer. The ruling on motion filed by FICAC to transfer matter to the High Court:
While delivering her ruling yesterday, Magistrate Prakash said the accused held a senior position in the institution he was employed by and the amount involved was more than $4.1 million.
“The maximum penalty for abuse of office is 17 years imprisonment, seven years more than the sentencing jurisdiction of a magistrate.
“The court therefore finds that this is an appropriate case for the High Court to deal with, given the seriousness of the offence and the amount involved and the high public office held by the accused. Therefore, the case is transferred to the High Court,” Magistrate Prakash said. Magistrate Prakash gave 28 days to appeal against the ruling made by the court.
The matter was adjourned for first call at the High Court in Suva on August 1.