WRAPPED in Secrecy: Did Indian Government 'donate' the eight vehicles or were they bought from Tappoos and shipped to Khaiyum?
The Indian High Commissions are masters in sending secret funds:
THIS MAN, Vijay Jolly, the convenor, OFBJP (Overseas Friends of BJP), the overseas wing of the present ruling Bhartiya Janta Party, seen below with Mahendra Chaudhry and recently with Khaiyum is the principal suspect linked to Chaudhry's 'Haryana millions'
Perjury probe request in Mahendra Chaudhry’s affidavit before Justice Daniel Goundar in the Fiji High Court and call for other criminal investigations arising out of Mr Chaudhry’s income tax file
By VICTOR LAL and RUSSELL HUNTER, 4 September 2012
After Justice Goundar’s recent judgment Victor Lal wrote to Mr Jolly (28 August and 1 September respectively) and copied it to other Delhi Study Group office bearers, demanding answers from the Group:
Dear Vijay Jolly
Recently the Fiji Hgh Court gave a judgment in the case of Mahendra Chaudhry and the $2million he had kept in his Australian bank account without informing the Inland Revenue Department here in Fjii
In his ruling, Justice Goundar observed the following:
The applicant (Mahendra Chaudhry) has annexed to his affidavit a reference dated 12 October 2004 from an institution called Delhi Study Group, which gives some insight of the original source of the funds the applicant received. The reference reads:
“This is to confirm that funds were collected in New Delhi and other parts of India, including NRI's (Non-Resident Indians) to assist Hon'ble Mahendra Pal Chaudhry, Former Prime Minister of Fiji in 2000-2002.
The funds were intended to solely assist Hon'ble Chaudhry and his family members to establish residence in another country following the political upheaval in Fiji in May 2000, in which his life and those of his family members were threatened by terrorist elements in Fiji.
Hon Chaudhry is very popular and is held in high regard by the people of India. It was the wish to the people of India to provide Hon'ble Chaudhry financial and physical security at a time when he was bravely defending the democratic and human rights of his people. The funds collect were sent to Hon'ble Chaudhry through assistance provided by the government of India between 2000 and 2002.”
(1) I would be very grateful if you could kindly let me know when the letter was actually written and who signed the above letter on behalf of DSG?
(2) I know that Mahend was in New Delhi in October 2004 and was seen at a press conference organized by the Delhi Study Group, and you were also present that day
(3) When did Mahend ask for the above letter?
(4) Did he tell the DSG what was the purpose of the letter?
(5) How was the funds transmitted into his Australian bank account?
(6) And what amount was put into his bank account in Australia?
In October 2004 he had provided a very similar letter to Fiji’s tax authorities by someone called Harbhajan Lal from Haryana – see a copy of the letter dated 9 September 2004 (provided by his delegated accountant Nalin Patel)? It’s an English translation from the original which was written in Hindi.
(1) Do you know who is Harbhajan Lal of Haryana?
(2) I wonder if DSG and Harbhajan Lal are talking about the same amounts – nearly $2million?
(3) Was Harbhajan Lal also part of the DSC?
(4) Was the DSG letter in English or Hindi?
Like the mysterious Harbhajan Lal in 2008, Mr Jolly (nor the other DSG’s office bearers) have replied to Victor Lal; an Indo-Fijian acquaintance of Mr Jolly even called him at his Delhi home on our behalf but we were informed that Mr Jolly is no longer answering his home or mobile phones regarding the Delhi Study Group letter.
Three days earlier, on 17 August 2012, Victor Lal had written to Nalin Patel:
You may recall I contacted you regarding Mahendra Chaudhry's tax details. You neither acknowledged nor replied to my set of questions that I had sent you in 2008.
To date, I have not been able to locate Harbhajan Lal in Haryana, and now Justice Goundar's judgment quotes a letter from Delhi Study Group, which was never a part of your exchanges, on behalf Mr Chaudhry, with FIRCA in 2004.
I would be very grateful if you could comment on the attachment, especially with the Prime Minister calling upon accountants to take a more active role in the Constitution making in Fiji.
When did you submit that Harbhajan Lal letter dated 9 September 2004 to FIRCA that year?
Did you have a copy of the Delhi Study Group letter dated 12 October 2004 also but chose to submit the Harbhajan Lal one?
Look forward to hearing from you.
5: We call upon the Director of Public Prosecutions to ask Mr Chaudhry who transferred the money from India – Delhi Study Group based in New Delhi or Harbahajan Lal in Haryana, India?
6: We request the Director of Public Prosecutions to establish whether Mr Chaudhry and Nalin Patel, in presenting to FIRCA the letter from Harbhjan Lal, whose content was materially false [re his enquiring the details of the funds etc] –Chaudhry (and Nalin Patel) committed a criminal offence under Fiji’s tax laws by offering a false document to FIRCA, namely the Harbhajan Lal letter.
7: We request the Director of Public Prosecutions to investigate the Suva accountancy firm of G. Lal & Co, Mr Chaudhry’s delegated tax agent to deal with FIRCA in 2004, to establish whether it was aware of the inconsistencies in the Harbhajan Lal-Chaudhry correspondence regarding the $2million, and whether the accountancy firm also had in its possession the Delhi Support Group letter dated 12 October 2004.
8: We request the Director of Public Prosecutions to establish whether Mr Chaudhry and Nalin Patel submitted Harbhajan Lal’s letter knowing its content was false in material respects to prevent FIRCA from pursuing the original source of the funds in Mr Chaudhry’s Australian bank account. We call upon the Director of Public Prosecutions to ask Mr Chaudhry which of the two letters – Harbhajan Lal or Delhi Study Group – is the lie – as they both can’t be genuine. Apart from the false accusations against us in his affidavit, the contents of the Harbhajan Lal letter dated 9 September 2004 does not accord with his bank statements from the Commonwealth Bank of Australia which he offered to FIRCA.
In our humble submission we beg the Director of Prosecutions to call upon the Fiji High Court to waiver the statute of limitation for prima facie there is evidence in the “Harbhajan Lal” letter that Mr Chaudhry obtained a favourable decision from FIRCA (an oversight on the part of FIRCA tax officers) through alleged fraud – the contents of the Harbhajan Lal letter does not square with his Australian bank statements.
Moreover, although we do not have a copy of Mr Chaudhry’s affidavit cited by Jutsice Goundar (despite requests for one from the Director of the Public Prosecutions) we call upon the Director of Public Prosecutions to examine the contents of both the Harbhajan Lal and the Delhi Support Group letters. If there are glaring disparities in the two letters than Mr Chaudhry must be deprived of the statute of limitation for the “fraud”, if any on his part, would be a continuing “fraud” since 2004 when he first offered Harbhajan Lal’s letter and now the Delhi Study Group letter in 2012 to explain away the $2million is his Australian bank account.
Justice Anthony Gates, Chief Justice of Fiji
Mr Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice
Mr Christopher Pryde, Director of Public Prosecutions
Prime Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama
Mr George Langman, Deputy Commissioner, FICAC
Madam Nazhat Shameem, Consultant, FICAC
Ms Elizabeth Yang, FICAC Prosecutor