Fijileaks: Full High Court Analysis to follow as we pursue other charges
  |  |
 |   |
 |  |
From Fijileaks Archive, 14 November 2025
 |  |
  |  |
There is credible information suggesting:
This creates reasonable grounds to suspect that the residential particulars recorded in the land-transfer instrument may have been inaccurate or misleading.
Grounds For Reasonable Suspicion
This complaint is not asserting wrongdoing as fact.
It asserts that reasonable suspicion exists, because the following appear inconsistent:
Citizenship and residence
A person who has been a New Zealand citizen since 2008 is unlikely, absent contrary evidence, to have been residing at a family address in Suva on 12 January 2021.
Immigration and travel records
If immigration logs reveal the transferee was not present in Fiji on or near the transfer date, the address listed would be materially false.
Utility and public-record indicators
Residency can be verified or disproven through:
Residential details are required to ensure:
Possible Offences (For FICAC Assessment)
(All listed as possible offences only, not asserted as proven.)
Crimes Act 2009
FICAC Act
AML/KYC rules
This list is not exhaustive; it outlines the statutory basis for FICAC jurisdiction.
Why The Matter Merits Formal Investigation
Request for Action to Fiji Police Force and FICAC
Conclusion:
This complaint does not allege guilt.
It asserts that reasonable grounds exist to suspect that false information was provided in the course of an official land transfer, and that the matter falls within FICAC’s jurisdiction for investigation.
In his 2021 and 2022 statutory declarations, Biman Chand Prasad didn't declare that he had disposed of the Rakiraki land to his son.
He also failed to declare that he had gifted Shanti Devi's former family land to his son, who by all accounts, has been living and working in New Zealand.
- long-standing residence in New Zealand;
- no known occupation or residence at 152 Sekoula Road during the relevant period;
- possible physical absence from Fiji around the transfer date.
This creates reasonable grounds to suspect that the residential particulars recorded in the land-transfer instrument may have been inaccurate or misleading.
Grounds For Reasonable Suspicion
This complaint is not asserting wrongdoing as fact.
It asserts that reasonable suspicion exists, because the following appear inconsistent:
Citizenship and residence
A person who has been a New Zealand citizen since 2008 is unlikely, absent contrary evidence, to have been residing at a family address in Suva on 12 January 2021.
Immigration and travel records
If immigration logs reveal the transferee was not present in Fiji on or near the transfer date, the address listed would be materially false.
Utility and public-record indicators
Residency can be verified or disproven through:
- EFL and Water Authority billing records,
- FRCS/TIN address records,
- Voter registration records,
- Tenancy or electoral listings.
Residential details are required to ensure:
- Identity accuracy,
- Compliance with land-registration rules,
- Compliance with anti-money-laundering (AML/KYC) laws,
- Proper tax treatment of transfers.
Possible Offences (For FICAC Assessment)
(All listed as possible offences only, not asserted as proven.)
Crimes Act 2009
- Section 201: False or misleading information to a public official
- Section 256–257: Use of false documents / uttering a false document
- Section 325: Obtaining a financial or property advantage by deception
- Section 334–340: General fraud and deception offences
- Section 66: Aiding, abetting, or conspiring to commit an offence
FICAC Act
- Providing false information to a public body
- Abuse of office (if a public officer participated)
- Supplying false particulars in a transfer instrument
- Any offence under the Registration of Titles Act relating to fraudulent registration
AML/KYC rules
- Providing false identification details for a transaction involving real property
This list is not exhaustive; it outlines the statutory basis for FICAC jurisdiction.
Why The Matter Merits Formal Investigation
- The case involves a public official (the grantor) and his immediate family member.
- The information relates to a registered land transfer, a process requiring strict truthfulness.
- The suspected false information concerns a simple, binary fact: whether the transferee resided at 152 Sekoula Road in early 2021.
- Verification is straightforward and documentary.
Request for Action to Fiji Police Force and FICAC
- Open a formal investigation into whether false information was provided in this land transfer.
Conclusion:
This complaint does not allege guilt.
It asserts that reasonable grounds exist to suspect that false information was provided in the course of an official land transfer, and that the matter falls within FICAC’s jurisdiction for investigation.
In his 2021 and 2022 statutory declarations, Biman Chand Prasad didn't declare that he had disposed of the Rakiraki land to his son.
He also failed to declare that he had gifted Shanti Devi's former family land to his son, who by all accounts, has been living and working in New Zealand.
 |  |
"The morning continued with a peaceful yoga session, bringing relaxation, movement, and positive energy to everyone present."
*As dawn broke over Suva on International Yoga Day on 21 June, Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka's Finance Minister joined the mats and mantras with serene confidence. Dressed in white t-shirt, breathing deeply, and posing alongside other yoga enthusiasts, he struck the image of a principled, peaceful leader, rooted in Indian tradition and moral clarity.
*But while Prasad was inhaling balance and exhaling peace, the truth he left off his statutory declarations remained tightly held in silence.
*But behind that placid public image is a more troubling reality: on 5 September 2024, FICAC had prepared a charge sheet to prosecute him for filing false and misleading declarations.
*Biman Prasad can roll out the mat all he wants. But until he faces the music over those false disclosures, no amount of chanting or asana will bring balance to the truth.
*In a country where political spin is an Olympic sport, Fiji's Finance Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister BIMAN PRASAD has perfected the pose: calm on the yoga mat, contorted on paper
 |   |
COMING: The LEASES, TRANSFERS, And The DECLARATIONS: INSIDE Land Dealings Linked to BIMAN PRASAD and RAJNI KAUSHAL CHAND
 |  |
The $30,000 Land Transfer: Questions Arising from the 2018 Assignment of iTaukei Lease No 33777
*The land transfer documents relating to iTaukei Lease No. 33777 raise a number of legal, regulatory, and disclosure questions that merit closer scrutiny, particularly when viewed against Fiji’s land laws, statutory declaration obligations, and the broader public interest in transparency involving politically exposed persons.
Public Interest Complaint to FICAC on the Rakiraki Land Transfer
In October 2025, acting under the doctrine of public interest and in my capacity as Editor of Fijileaks, I formally lodged a detailed complaint with the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) concerning the Rakiraki land transfer involving Certificate of Title 36435 and related declarations by National Federation Party leader Biman Chand Prasad.
The complaint was supported by extensive documentary evidence, including land transfer records, statutory declarations, company documents, title searches, correspondence, and other supporting materials relating to the ownership, transfer, disclosure, and possible concealment of assets connected to the Rakiraki property and associated interests.
The referral raised serious questions regarding alleged false declarations, non-disclosure of assets, potential abuse of office, and whether the declarations made under the Political Parties Act accurately reflected the true state of ownership and beneficial interests. Copies of the complaint and supporting documents were circulated to relevant authorities and oversight bodies in Fiji and overseas jurisdictions (New Zealand) where necessary.
Fijileaks will continue to examine the documentary trail surrounding the Rakiraki land transaction and related asset declarations in the wider public interest, particularly in light of ongoing legal and political scrutiny surrounding Biman Prasad’s statutory declarations and disclosure obligations.
In October 2025, acting under the doctrine of public interest and in my capacity as Editor of Fijileaks, I formally lodged a detailed complaint with the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) concerning the Rakiraki land transfer involving Certificate of Title 36435 and related declarations by National Federation Party leader Biman Chand Prasad.
The complaint was supported by extensive documentary evidence, including land transfer records, statutory declarations, company documents, title searches, correspondence, and other supporting materials relating to the ownership, transfer, disclosure, and possible concealment of assets connected to the Rakiraki property and associated interests.
The referral raised serious questions regarding alleged false declarations, non-disclosure of assets, potential abuse of office, and whether the declarations made under the Political Parties Act accurately reflected the true state of ownership and beneficial interests. Copies of the complaint and supporting documents were circulated to relevant authorities and oversight bodies in Fiji and overseas jurisdictions (New Zealand) where necessary.
Fijileaks will continue to examine the documentary trail surrounding the Rakiraki land transaction and related asset declarations in the wider public interest, particularly in light of ongoing legal and political scrutiny surrounding Biman Prasad’s statutory declarations and disclosure obligations.
