RAKIRAKI LAND FIRE SALE: Indo-Fijian Widow Loses Her LAND to Fiji Development Bank. Economist and Professor Gains Windfall. How Shanti Devi's LOSS Became BIMAN Prasad and his SON's 10.4 Hectare LAND

*The NFP leader, and until lately the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, Biman Prasad, didn't declare in his 2022 mandatory statutory declaration that a piece of land he bought for $60,000 in 2007 in Rakiraki from FDB belonging to Shanti Devi, a widow of Mohan, he gifted it to his NZ based son Mayuresh Bhan Prasad in 2021 for a nominal sum of $100, citing "for natural love and affection".

"This is a historical convention for the National Federation Party before the 2018 General Election. It is in this town of Rakiraki that the NFP was born under a mango tree and later formalised and launched in Nadi."
3 September 2016, Biman Prasad to NFP Annual Convention

March 2023: NFP Leader and former Finance Minister and DPM Biman Prasad unveils the plaque to open the new party office in Rakiraki

*When an Indo-Fijian Widow's Financial Woes Became the USP Economic Lecturer's Discount.  The FDB Fire Sale Turned into Biman Prasad's Bargain Land in Rakiraki

Summary of Key Rakiraki Land Sale Details

• Instrument No: 605959
• Transferor (Seller): Fiji Development Bank (FDB), a statutory body corporate under the Fiji Development Bank Act (Cap. 214), headquartered at 360 Victoria Parade, Suva.
• Registered Proprietor (Previous Owner/Mortgagor): Shanti Devi (widow of Mohan) of Rakiraki, Fiji.
• Transferee (Purchaser): Biman Chand (PhD) of 152 Sekoula Road, Laucala Beach Estate, Nasinu.

Land Description:

• Title No.: CT 36435
• Lot 2 on DP 7602 (Part of Waikaum & Cakova)
• Province/Island: Viti Levu
• District/Town: Rakiraki
• Area: 10.3883 hectares
• Sale Agreement Date: 5 September 2006
• Transfer Date: Executed 10 April 2007
• Registration Date: 27 April 2007 at 1:50 p.m.
• Consideration (Sale Price): $60,000.00

Nature of the Transfer

This was not a voluntary sale by the registered owner Shanti Devi.

It was a forced sale conducted by the Fiji Development Bank (FDB), exercising its statutory “power of sale” as mortgagee under a mortgage registered on 29 November 2005 (Notification No. 577079).

Under Fiji's property law and the Land Transfer Act, when a borrower (mortgagor) defaults on their loan, the mortgagee (in this case, FDB) is entitled, after due notice and compliance with statutory requirements, to sell the mortgaged property to recover the outstanding debt.

Why FDB Sold Shanti Devi's Land

​FDB sold the land in exercise of its power of sale because the mortgagor, Shanti Devi, had defaulted on her loan obligations secured by the land.

This is explicitly stated in the document’s heading: “TRANSFER BY MORTGAGEE IN EXERCISE OF POWER OF SALE.”

FDB’s sale was to recover the unpaid loan amount or part thereof. Upon default, the bank was legally entitled to:

• Take possession of the property;
• Sell it (by private treaty or public auction); and
• Apply the proceeds toward the outstanding mortgage debt, interest, and costs.

The bank’s seal and officers’ signatures (Executive Manager, Asset Management Unit and Senior Manager, Legal Services) confirm that this was a bank-initiated recovery sale.

Legal Effect of the Transfer

By operation of law:

• FDB’s exercise of the power of sale extinguished the mortgagor’s interest (Shanti Devi’s ownership) in the property.
• The purchaser (Biman Chand, PhD) obtained good title free of prior encumbrances, as long as FDB complied with the mortgage and statutory requirements.
• The Registrar of Titles formally registered the transfer on 27 April 2007, completing the change of ownership.

In short, the Fiji Development Bank sold the land because Shanti Devi defaulted on her FDB mortgage loan. The purchaser, Dr Biman Prasad, PhD, acquired the 10.3883-hectare Rakiraki property for $60,000 on 27 April 2007.

BIMANOMICS AT WORK:
*The much smaller plot of land beside Biman Prasad's $60,000 Rakiraki land (2007) is now worth $355,000 in 2025

On 12 January 2021, Biman Prasad transferred his plot of land to his NZ based son for a nominal consideration of $100, and it was formally registered on 4 February 2021

12 January 2021: So, Mayuresh Bhan Prasad Just Happened To Be Living with Biman Prasad and wife Rajni Khausal Chand at 152 Sekoula Rd, Laucala Beach, Suva, on Rakiraki Land Transfer Day.
*We ask FICAC and Fiji Police and FRCA to investigate whether false information was knowingly provided during the transfer of Rakiraki land from the NFP leader and now former Finance Minister Biman Prasad to his son, Mayuresh Bhan Prasad, on 12 January 2021, specially concerning Mayuresh Bhan Prasad's claimed residence at 152 Sekoula Rd, Laucala Beach, Suva.

BACKGROUND and CHRONOLOGY: Ownership history

Between 2014 and 2020, Biman Chand Prasad declared ownership of a parcel of land in Rakiraki, identifying it by its Certificate of Title number (36435) in consecutive public asset declarations.

This demonstrates his consistent knowledge of the land and its legal particulars.

Transfer to his son, Mayuresh Bhan Prasad

Records indicate that on 4 February 2021, the land was transferred to his son, Mayuresh Bhan Prasad. The transfer documentation lists Mayuresh’s residential address as: “152 Sekoula Road, Suva.”

Publicly available evidence suggesting possible falsity

Independent evidence, Linkedin employment profile, including a published Otago Daily Times (New Zealand) record, confirms that Mayuresh Bhan Prasad obtained New Zealand citizenship in 2008.

There is credible information suggesting: 

• 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.

Registration requirements

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.

Any false address compromises the legality and validity of the transaction.

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)

Land/Title laws

• 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.

The public interest is clear: the integrity of land records, public disclosures, and anti-corruption processes depends on the accuracy of information provided to government authorities.

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.

SHANTI DEVI:
​We are left to wonder what fate, and what financial misery, befell Shanti Devi, Mohan's widow from Rakiraki. Shanti means Peace. The Prasads' are sitting on a fortune

Rakiraki Land Slipped Away From Shanti Devi But Elsewhere, the Forecast for the Prasad Family Was Permanent Shade and Bright Financial Skies