Fijileaks
  • Home
  • Archive Home
  • In-depth Analysis
    • BOI Report into George Speight and others beatings
  • Documents
  • Opinion
  • CRC Submissions
  • Features
  • Archive

RE-IGNITING OLD SPAT: FLP and followers of Mahendra Chaudhry attack VICTOR LAL over Bainimarama's $184,000 Back Pay story re-published by Fijileaks, claiming Chaudhry was in the dark over fraudulent payment

2/3/2015

19 Comments

 

"The recommendation to the President to award the leave pay went from the Attorney General's Office. It was then paid by the RFMF. The matter did not go through the Finance Ministry nor was the Ministry aware of the payment at the time it was made."
FLP Statement 'Stop the Lies, Victor Lal', February 28, 2015

Picture

"Interim Finance Minister Chaudhry told Fijilive that money was due to Bainimarama and the Finance Ministry did the right thing in giving what was owed to him. He added that no one has a right to dwell into the private matters of the interim Prime Minister." Fijilive 2008

"In mid-2008 Bainimarama received $184,740 payment from Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhry for leave not taken exteding back to 1978" - Professors Stewart Firth and Jon Fraenkel in The 2006 Military Takeover in Fiji: A Coup to End All Coups; Chaudhry also contributed a chapter 'Democracy' versus good governance in that book; and so did deported Fiji Sun publisher Russell Hunter, State Control and Self Censorship in the Media after the Coup; Victor Lal and Russell Hunter had exposed Chaudhry's secret $2million which had resulted in the abduction, detention and deportation of Hunter out of Fiji in February 2008 and the subsequent arrest, trial and conviction of Chaudhry in May 2014

Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Chaudhry with Chief Minister Chautala of Haryana
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Anand Singh (right) with Chaudhry: Before he took on the case, see below what he thought of Chaudhry:

ANAND SINGH, FLP leader Mahendra Chaudhry's lawyer
to VICTOR LAL, 21 February 2008
"The question that comes to mind is as to why he did not transfer the funds to FLP? He belonged to FLP at the time and must report any funds to FLP and transfer it to it. I believe that Daaku's outburst in parliament and the argument should be used against him. You would have to read the Hansard alongside my comments to fully follow what I am saying. Eventually I come to the conclusion the the funds were raised fro [for] the community that he has converted to his own use. Incidentally, that story abt the daughter [getting $50,000 as gift from Chaudhry] was very successful. It has got samdhi sahida very quiet. i was looking for Rani's picture and Juniors' that could be published with proper notation as unintended beneficiaries. Perhaps my mind is racing off too much?... For the moment dont you think u should repeat the story with specific details of the Bank transactions. In another unrelated story have a detaied piece on the explanation he gave to Parliamnet and which will be priveleged. The reaaders will read both and know the real culprit and see for themselves the lie that Daaku said in Parliamnent. The facts as disclosed prima facie indicate he lied to Parliamnet and the people of Fiji. If he lied and as we know he did by not telling the complete story as Q had asked him to, he would have been liable to be referred to the Priveleges Committee of Parliament for a serious breach of privilege. In the absence of Parliamnet, the matter has to be dealt with publically thru th media. Daaku was on TV last nite on other issues. He had the artificial smile all over his face. He is pretending nothing has happened or is getting ready to attack everyone else but himself. thsi man is so shameless and ruthless. I dnt think he has any scruples abt taking the money belonging to the people of Fiji. ____ met with Indian high Commissioner yesterday. He has his head buried in sand. Says the money could not have been paid into the Bank by the Consulate General. he was very dismissive.and indirectly casting doubt on the authenticity of the story. I feel it is important to get a statement or verification from Harbajan before Daaku clams up. The admission from Harbajan is enough to hang Daaku politically and will go a long way as a legal defence. Just my thoughts...[The late] Dalpat [Rathod, FLP treasurer] told me that in India Daaku would go in to see the PM by himself and leave Dalpat behind. I have had a similar experience with daaku too. Daaku will forever curse himself for having left the money in au [Australia]. He must regret not putting it in Honk Kong."

Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
To summarize, Justice Goundar observed in Chaudhry v State [2012]  FJHC 1229; HAM034.2011 (25 July 2012):

“The applicant says he later found out that a former editor of the Fiji Sun obtained his confidential tax details from FIRCA and released it to Victor Lal, a former Fiji journalist residing overseas. Victor Lal published those details in anti-government websites.”


We have demonstrated that we never published Mr Chaudhry’s tax details in any anti-government websites but in the Sunday Sun dated 24 February 2008, including the first tax story in the Fiji Sun, on 15 August 2007.
1: We therefore call upon the Director of Public Prosecutions to investigative whether Mr Chaudhry committed the offence of “perjury in a false affidavit”.

2: We call upon the Director of Public Prosecutions to investigate whether Mr Chaudhry’s legal representatives in offering his affidavit to the Fiji High Court are also guilty of aiding and abetting the offence of perjury in a false affidavit, for it is abundantly clear that we did not publish Mr Chaudhry’s tax details in any anti-government websites.

3: We request the Director of Public Prosecutions to establish on what grounds the original letter tendered from one Harbhajan Lal dated 9 September 2004 to FIRCA from Haryana in India was withheld [if it was] and a new letter from Delhi Study Group dated 12 October 2004 substituted in Mr Chaudhry’s affidavit before Justice Daniel Goundar in the Fiji High Court. The “Harbhajan Lal Letter” of 9 September 2004 states the money was collected in Haryana and part of it was transacted through the Indian Consulate in Sydney, Australia. Harbhajan Lal wrote from Haryana:

“Respected Chaudhry Saheb, Nameste. We are hale and hearty here and please accept our good wishes. I received your letter. You have asked for details of the funds. You may recall that when you were here in the year 2000, we had formed a committee, which requested you to leave Fiji and stay in Australia since the situation in Fiji was not safe and you were not secure there. The committee also assured you that it would collect funds for your settlement in Australia. Lakhs of people from Haryana including traders, businessmen, landlords and non-resident Indians contributed heavily for the cause. The amount was pouring in for three years, which was sent to you from the year 2000 to 2002. The total amounting to nearly AUD fifteen laks was sent to you with the help of Government of India through its Consulate General in Sydney. We sent AUD 503,000/- as first instalment in the year 2000. In 2001, AUD $486,890/- was sent and then in 2002 AUD $514, 149/- was sent.”

The “Delhi Study Group Letter” states, “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.”

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.

9: We request the Director of Public Prosecutions to investigative whether Mr Chaudhry, in presenting the Tax Amnesty submission to the Cabinet in September 2007 for endorsement, might have abused office as Interim Finance Minister and direct line manager of Fiji Island Revenue and Customs Authority (FIRCA), to benefit himself, and to escape any future criminal prosecutions for submitting late tax returns between 2000 and 2003. We have documentary evidence that in August 2007 Mr Chaudhry still owed FIRCA $57,000 in tax debt, due to be paid on 9 August 2007. His own $57,000 could have fitted into insufficient advance payment or even late payment amnesty.

10. We therefore request the DPP to establish whether Mr Chaudhry had taxes or returns outstanding and paid during the amnesty period he had ordered and hence gained avoidance of penalties, and if so, then a case for Abuse of Office as Finance Minister and line manager of FIRCA could be made against him.

11: We call upon the Director of Public Prosecutions to plead with the Fiji High Court to expunge the patently false claims made against us in Chaudhry v State [2012] FJHC 1229; HAM034.2011 (25 July 2012) – re that we published Mr Chaudhry’s tax details in anti-government websites. In conclusion, we leave you with the words of the great English judge, the late Lord Denning in King v Victor Parsons & Co [1973] 1 WLR 29, 33-34:

“The word 'fraud' here is not used in the common law sense. It is used in the equitable sense to denote conduct by the defendant or his agent such that it would be 'against conscience' for him to avail himself of the lapse of time. The cases show that, if a man knowingly commits a wrong (such as digging underground another man's coal); or a breach of contract (such as putting in bad foundations to a house), in such circumstances that it is unlikely to be found out for many a long day, he cannot rely on the Statute of Limitations as a bar to the claim: see Bulli Coal Mining Co v Osborne [1899] AC 351 and Applegate v Moss [1971] 1 QB 406. In order to show that he 'concealed' the right of action 'by fraud', it is not necessary to show that he took active steps to conceal his wrongdoing or breach of contract. It is sufficient that he knowingly committed it and did not tell the owner anything about it. He did the wrong or committed the breach secretly. By saying nothing he keeps it secret. He conceals the right of action. He conceals it by 'fraud' as those words have been interpreted in the cases. To this word 'knowingly' there must be added recklessly': see Beaman v ARTS Ltd [1949] 1 KB 550, 565-566. Like the man who turns a blind eye. He is aware that what he is doing may well be a wrong, or a breach of contract, but he takes the risk of it being so. He refrains from further inquiry least it should prove to be correct: and says nothing about it. The court will not allow him to get away with conduct of that kind. It may be that he has no dishonest motive: but that does not matter. He has kept the plaintiff out of the knowledge of his right of action: and that is enough: see Kitchen v Royal Air Force Association [1958] 1 WLR 563.”

The limitation statute’s aim is to prevent citizens from being oppressed by stale claims, to protect settled interests from being disturbed, to bring certainty and finality to disputes and so on. These are, as legal commentators have pointed out, laudable aims but they can conflict with the need to do justice in individual cases where an otherwise unmeritorious defendant can play the limitation trump card and escape liability.

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 Justice 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.

VICTOR LAL and RUSSELL HUNTER, 4 September 2012
19 Comments
Let Truth Be Known
2/3/2015 01:59:51 am

As Chaudhary has categorically denied the payment was neither approved or processed by the Ministry of Finance the onus now is on you to prove otherwise with concrete evidence rather than relying on third party reporting from Fijilive or based on innuendoes, hunches and gossip. Your investigative journalistic skill should come handy on this.

Reply
Chaudhary tho CHOR Hai.
2/3/2015 04:11:39 am

All monies originate from the treasury - The Minister of Finance, ,at the material time (and two years earlier) was non other than daaku Chaudhary. The military had no surplus funds. The AG's office had no mandate, during MPC rein for money matters.

Also can or does Chaudhary deny FijiLive reporting?? The other thing is - a corrupt can only corrupt another.

But let us not forget that the REAL CHOR here is Bainimarama -who pocketed the Money - Chor Sala Bainimarama ek daam Chaudhary estyle!

Reply
Budgeted Money
3/3/2015 12:38:40 am

Pls note the MoF allocates total amount to each ministry. It may not decide or be aware of what the dept does with the money ie what amount of the budgeted total goes to pay salary, what amount goes to individuals to pay for accrued leave and what amount is spent on other items etc. What you are describing is what a MoF would do in an ideal world, not what happens or could happen in the real world.

Confirmation Required
3/3/2015 12:54:05 am

Can Fijileaks confirm with Qarase that as claimed by Chaudhary ever since Qarase's the RFMF budget has not been under the control of MoF.

Why No Action
3/3/2015 01:06:31 am

Can Victor Lal explain to his readers why despite his recommendations to the DPP to investigate Chaudhary on his improprieties re this affair no action was taken by the DPP nor FICAC and instead Chaudhary was charged and convicted on a lesser charge of exchange control violations and not on tax evasion, embezzlement and corruption.

Old Chameleon
2/3/2015 07:15:41 am

Why not let Chaudhary PROVE that the very irregular payment to Bainimarama,(and which Bainmarama pocketed /Chori) was NOT from the Ministry of Finance as Chaudhry, at the moment is just saying. Chor chaudhary is only saying this to look good.

Did Chaudhary also not say that Bainimarama was an avatar, a devta to the Indo-Fijians ??and did Chaudhary also not say that two years was not enough for the regime and he needed five??

CHOR Chaudhary is a Chameleon - changing his color to suit his environment.

Reply
Natural Justice
3/3/2015 12:46:46 am

Pls note that natural justice requires that it is the duty of the accuser (Fijileaks) to prove that the claim it is making is backed by facts and can be defended in the court and not the responsibility of the accused. Unless you want rest of the world that Fijileaks is telling the truth and nothing else but the truth.

Refugee Singh
2/3/2015 02:09:19 am

This Chaudhary, who could not, (did not), even donate ‘rice and dhal’ to the desperate, needy, homeless girmit center refugees – and under whose name Chaudhary was raking in millions – now has the audacity to question Victor Lal?? Ha..Ha..

Appeal after Appeal after Appeal, this Chaudhary has remained the CONVICT fraudster. Ha..Ha..!

Reply
Stop Lying FLP!
2/3/2015 02:36:33 am

Anand was with MPC in USA and Canada. Did he give account of how much MPC received which was more than $100k? Or can FLP report to Victor Lal and show the books on all donations received by FLP from August 2000 to December 2002?

The USA politician Mr Raman Raniga in Fiji can explain how much money they collected that MPC requested Refugee Camps name in thebank draft be replaced with another draft changed to his personal name?

Can FLP's treasurer show records of how much money they paid Girmit Centre as reported by Nasinu Town Council Mayor / FLP treasurer back in 2008 and MPC told refugees in Muaniweni he did not give ANY money to the victims who were fighting chaudhry's legal battle in court.

And your leader Mr MPC wants to be Mr Clean!!!

Reply
Who's Lying ?
2/3/2015 10:33:13 am

The testimony by his very own Lawyer - OMG - doesn't that speak volumes - That's the character reference that establishes MPC as a Liar - big-time.

Reply
Chaudhry maligning Chautala
2/3/2015 11:38:34 am

Firstly, MPC was fighting a battle towards restoration of democracy in Fiji. Chautala promised before Chaudhry leaves India, 'Government of India' will give Chaudhry lots of money and whatever else he needs towards that cause Government of India will oblige. [These money that came through Govt of India ended up in Australia instead]

Secondly more money that were collected publically by Chautala team, Chautala enquiry established that Chaudhry wanted this money be diverted to Australia instead of Fiji sighting Foreign Exchange issues. Because this was illegal, Chautala's team did not send the money to Australia.

Thirdly, Chautala enquiry established that since the purpose of funds were over, the money collected for Chaudhry will no longewr be sent to him, but used in any other NRI activities.

FLP, can you tell what the purpose was as neither Chaudhry resided in Australia for what he proclaimed the public money he received were purported to be for as the Chautala enquiry did not establish money was for settling Chaudhry in Australia.

Remember it was about 300 Girmit Centre Refugee toddlers, children, parents and elderly who actually faught the battle towards restoration of democracy via nominating Chandrika Prasad representing the refugee camp and rejected names of those earlier chosen by the FHRC.

It was the amended or additional supplementary writ that Justice Gates requested from Chandrika Prasad that led to restoration of 1997 Constitution and return to parliamentary rule.

FLP, can you ask Chaudhry where is the money he received after touching emotions of people by referring Refugee Camp victims in his every speach in public and to the Prime Ministers' of India and NZ?

Why did Chaudhry not inform Chautala the money collected under Chaudhry's name were actually to meet all expenses of refugee camp from feeding dhal and rice to the legal bills as they were fighting the battle to restoration of democracy in Fiji from the Girmit Centre?



Reply
Chaudhry / FLP ANSWER
2/3/2015 08:07:44 pm

If you can jump to make comments about file story reproduced, then what is stopping you guys to respond to above comments? The refugee victims remain uncompensated... but $1m of that interest bearing accumulated funds well beyond $2m is now enjoyed by Govt instead by way of fine imposed for breaching Exchange control act.

This is more serious stuff then MPC's allocation of funds for leave back pay.

Reply
Dekho
2/3/2015 12:12:56 pm

Victor Lal has nothing to gain by " spreading lies" as claimed by Mahendra Chaudhury and his FLP cronies and sycophants. Chaudhury like Bainimarama and Khaiyum has a history of lying to the people of Fiji to serve their own political and personal agenda.
Question is as a responsible Minister of Finance did Chaudhury at the time of the dubious and devious "leave back pay " to the military dictator Bainimarama raise any issue regarding non compliance with established procedures for the processing of that payment?
Did he alert the people of Fiji whose money was being siphoned off for this fictitious leave payment?
If he did not - and I am not aware that he did - then that is a gross failure of duty to the Fijian people.
This whole thing stinks of a classic ' Ali Baba and his Forty Thieves' enterprise.

Reply
Yep
2/3/2015 12:31:48 pm

Yep, these scoundrels were in it - the coffers of the Fijian public - together. They were ALL engaged in defrauding the people of Fiji and filling their pockets.
Shame on them . Shame on each and everyone of them!

Reply
History
2/3/2015 12:20:08 pm

I don't understand why FLP and Chaudhry had to lash out over a story that was reproduced in 2010

The main focus of the article was Frank's back pay and fear that Aziz who is on leave was seen in UAE

But then FLP and Chaudhry love to pick up fight with all and sundry

Reply
Scoundrels
2/3/2015 04:08:30 pm

Here's what another scoundrel in the Bainimarama government says. Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum the minister for many things and attorney General told the parliamentary standing committee on natural resources not to interfere with the rule of law over the issue of ( the CORRUPT decision to rezone) Shirley Park in Lautoka. He says the committee had no powers or mandate to usurp the legal processes laid down in the law.
That is something that only a usurper like Khaiyum and Bainimarama are entitled to do.
We all know that only too well.

Reply
rajend naidu
2/3/2015 08:40:58 pm

Namibian President Hifikepunye Pohamba Wins $5Million Mo Ibrahim Prize For African Leadership ( Forbes 2/03/15 ).
The award is given for exemplary good governance leadership. In the past few years the award was not given because there was no worthy leader in Africa for it.
If a similar award was available for the Pacific , Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum and Frank Bainimarama would have won it hands down with their exemplary " clean " leadership following their unelected rise to power. I am sure every man and his dog in Fiji will agree with me.

Reply
ChunMun ke owner
2/3/2015 11:39:34 pm

My dog ChunMun does not agree.

He says Bainimara won free and fair elections, and people should accept it.

Reply
Birds of same Feather
3/3/2015 05:07:36 am

Choudhary and Bainimarama both had popular mandate at ballot box, both became elected PM.

Both have greasy palms also, one made a huge hit in India although he paid back a million,interest component only given it was invested in term deposit for over 10 yrs..and the latter getting a historical world record 30 yr leave pay,such was his dedication to hard work he never took leave? kidding me!

Something is definitely amiss amongst our voters, we are unable to see beyond our nose when casting our vote.

The alternative sitting as Oppositionalso look horribly worrying.




Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    editor@fijileaks.com

    ARCHIVES

    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    Picture
    Picture