ANDREW MOTI SINGH TO FICAC:
Abuse of FNU credit card
In the past, both men have used their FNU credit card to pay for their personal expenses and to the best of my knowledge have not repaid the amount to FNU. This is contrary to FNU’s own credit card policy which I enclose [ANNEXURE D]. It is patently clear from this policy that any FNU credit card must only be used for “official purposes” (1.1.1).
The policy goes on to clearly state that that the credit card “is not for personal expenditure” (3.1). There is nothing in the FNU credit card policy which specifically gives Chand and Prasad any authority whatsoever to use their allocated FNU credit cards for both business and personal purposes.
Despite such clear restriction, I have found out that both men have been using their FNU credit card for their personal expenditure and have created their individual debtors account for this purpose, in clear violation of the policy. Both will direct the finance staff to debit their personal expenditure incurred through use of their credit cards to their respective debtor account (or customer account). My investigations further revealed that instead of paying their debts the duo would either prolong payment, ignore or anticipate to have these written off. This was all done in collusion with a Shalend Anand whose role I have described below.
I enclose the customer accounts of Chand [ANNEXURE E] and Prasad [ANNEXURE F] from which FICAC will note that Chand owed FNU $15.45 since 2011, $6,810.03 since 2012 and $7,523.55 for 2013. Similarly, Prasad owed $2,159.17 for 2012 and $6,260.93 for 2013. It is patently clear from these documents that both men have been using FNU’s funds to pay for their personal expenditure, in flagrant disregard to FNU’s policy.
Even in a recent internal audit commissioned by Chand, the external auditors Price Waterhouse Coopers implicated Chand and Prasad using their credit cards to pay for their personal expenditure under the pretext of business expense. I enclose an extract [ANNEXURE G].
Despite this finding, both men have not paid their customer accounts, notwithstanding the fact that both knew (or ought to have known) they never had any authority whatsoever to incur the personal expenditure in the first place and then create a “customer account” in the FNU books to evade payment. In short, both have abused their position by unlawfully using FNU funds. What makes matters worse is the duo’s recent attempts to have these amounts written off. I am investigating this aspect of the matter and shall provide documentary evidence to FICAC separately.
This practice has been ongoing for years and should have been questioned by FNU’s senior finance manager, Shalend Anand. Anand is a CA and CPA and the most senior of all finance managers at FNU. The only reason he failed to question Chand and Prasad was because like others, he too was in Chand’s pocket. My investigations revealed that Mr Anand was given annual performance bonus of some $5,000 as kickback for being loyal to Chand/Prasad while other finance staff were ignored for their hard work, simply because they were not part of the Chand/Prasad clan. Those who queried the practice were sacked by Chand/Prasad.
I claim that both men have breached s139 of the Crimes Decree. That statutory provision clearly states that a person working for the public sector who directly or indirectly abuses the authority of his office by an arbitrary act prejudicing the rights of another person is guilty. As already mentioned, both men are employed by FNU – owned by the Government of Fiji. By using FNU’s credit card for their personal expenditure contrary to FNU policy and then not paying the amount due to FNU for such expenditure is clearly prejudicial to FNU and the taxpayers of Fiji. They attempt to have their debts written off makes matters worse. FNU is a “person” within the definition of s4 of the Decree.
Even if the men have recently paid their debt to FNU, this does not absolve them from any criminal liability whatsoever. The legislation makes that very clear. Had they borrowed the amounts outstanding in their credit card accounts from commercial banks, they would have to pay interest and charges. By using FNU funds both have avoided this which must attract severe sanctions, given their seniority and positions of trust. Anand has been complicit in the whole saga and his inactions must been properly scrutinised.
Fijileaks: We will be publishing Shalend Anand's response soon; he has denied the allegations!
In the past, both men have used their FNU credit card to pay for their personal expenses and to the best of my knowledge have not repaid the amount to FNU. This is contrary to FNU’s own credit card policy which I enclose [ANNEXURE D]. It is patently clear from this policy that any FNU credit card must only be used for “official purposes” (1.1.1).
The policy goes on to clearly state that that the credit card “is not for personal expenditure” (3.1). There is nothing in the FNU credit card policy which specifically gives Chand and Prasad any authority whatsoever to use their allocated FNU credit cards for both business and personal purposes.
Despite such clear restriction, I have found out that both men have been using their FNU credit card for their personal expenditure and have created their individual debtors account for this purpose, in clear violation of the policy. Both will direct the finance staff to debit their personal expenditure incurred through use of their credit cards to their respective debtor account (or customer account). My investigations further revealed that instead of paying their debts the duo would either prolong payment, ignore or anticipate to have these written off. This was all done in collusion with a Shalend Anand whose role I have described below.
I enclose the customer accounts of Chand [ANNEXURE E] and Prasad [ANNEXURE F] from which FICAC will note that Chand owed FNU $15.45 since 2011, $6,810.03 since 2012 and $7,523.55 for 2013. Similarly, Prasad owed $2,159.17 for 2012 and $6,260.93 for 2013. It is patently clear from these documents that both men have been using FNU’s funds to pay for their personal expenditure, in flagrant disregard to FNU’s policy.
Even in a recent internal audit commissioned by Chand, the external auditors Price Waterhouse Coopers implicated Chand and Prasad using their credit cards to pay for their personal expenditure under the pretext of business expense. I enclose an extract [ANNEXURE G].
Despite this finding, both men have not paid their customer accounts, notwithstanding the fact that both knew (or ought to have known) they never had any authority whatsoever to incur the personal expenditure in the first place and then create a “customer account” in the FNU books to evade payment. In short, both have abused their position by unlawfully using FNU funds. What makes matters worse is the duo’s recent attempts to have these amounts written off. I am investigating this aspect of the matter and shall provide documentary evidence to FICAC separately.
This practice has been ongoing for years and should have been questioned by FNU’s senior finance manager, Shalend Anand. Anand is a CA and CPA and the most senior of all finance managers at FNU. The only reason he failed to question Chand and Prasad was because like others, he too was in Chand’s pocket. My investigations revealed that Mr Anand was given annual performance bonus of some $5,000 as kickback for being loyal to Chand/Prasad while other finance staff were ignored for their hard work, simply because they were not part of the Chand/Prasad clan. Those who queried the practice were sacked by Chand/Prasad.
I claim that both men have breached s139 of the Crimes Decree. That statutory provision clearly states that a person working for the public sector who directly or indirectly abuses the authority of his office by an arbitrary act prejudicing the rights of another person is guilty. As already mentioned, both men are employed by FNU – owned by the Government of Fiji. By using FNU’s credit card for their personal expenditure contrary to FNU policy and then not paying the amount due to FNU for such expenditure is clearly prejudicial to FNU and the taxpayers of Fiji. They attempt to have their debts written off makes matters worse. FNU is a “person” within the definition of s4 of the Decree.
Even if the men have recently paid their debt to FNU, this does not absolve them from any criminal liability whatsoever. The legislation makes that very clear. Had they borrowed the amounts outstanding in their credit card accounts from commercial banks, they would have to pay interest and charges. By using FNU funds both have avoided this which must attract severe sanctions, given their seniority and positions of trust. Anand has been complicit in the whole saga and his inactions must been properly scrutinised.
Fijileaks: We will be publishing Shalend Anand's response soon; he has denied the allegations!
