25/05/2026
๐๐ข๐ ๐ก ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ ๐๐ข๐ฌ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฌ๐ฌ๐๐ฌ ๐๐๐ญ๐ ๐๐ฉ๐ฉ๐๐๐ฅ ๐๐ข๐
Former civil servant, Rahul Ravikash Kumar's application for an enlargement of time to appeal against his sentence has been dismissed by the Suva High Court.
Mr Kumar, a former employee of the Ministry of Education, Heritage and Arts, was convicted and sentenced on 14 March 2025 after being found guilty of 56 counts of money laundering, one count of unauthorised modification of data, and one count of obtaining a financial advantage.
The Court found that between 4 April 2017 and 20 June 2020, Mr Kumar unlawfully accessed the Ministry's Financial Management System, modified
data without authority, and obtained $341,981.81.
He was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 5 years.
Mr Kumar subsequently applied for an enlargement of time to appeal against the aggregate custodial sentence.
Puisne Judge Justice Pita Bulamainavalu delivered the ruling today and said that on 16 December 2025, Mr Kumar filed the application in the High Court Criminal Registry, but the petition of appeal was lodged approximately 8 months out of time.
He said the statutory 28-day period for filing the petition had lapsed on or about 11 April 2025.
Justice Bulamainavalu stated that the applicant's petition of appeal ought to have been filed within 28 days from 14 March 2025.
Mr Kumar submitted that his counsel in the Magistrates' Court had instructed him not to appeal, despite being aware of the 28-day filing requirement.
He further submitted that a civil forfeiture action was being pursued against him and that he did not receive a copy of the sentencing decision until much later.
State Counsel for the respondent, the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC), Ms Nimisha Shankar, argued that the reasons advanced by the applicant for the delay, including the concurrent civil forfeiture proceedings, did not constitute good cause.
Justice Bulamainavalu stated that the applicant had advanced two grounds of appeal against sentence, alleging that the sentencing magistrate had erred.
The first ground alleged that extraneous or irrelevant matters were allowed to influence the sentence and that insufficient consideration was given to the mitigating factors presented by the applicant.
The second ground alleged that the sentencing court had been informed that no funds had been recovered, whereas the applicant asserted that FICAC had prior knowledge of forfeiture proceedings commenced before he was formally
charged.
Justice Bulamainavalu noted that the applicant had not properly advanced these grounds in a formal petition of appeal, but had instead raised them only in submissions relating to the application for enlargement of time to appeal against sentence.
After carefully considering the sentence imposed by the learned magistrate, the Court found that the applicant's proposed grounds of appeal were not
meritorious and had no real prospect of success on appeal.
Accordingly, Mr Kumar's application was denied and dismissed.
The application was heard on 11 May 2026, with the ruling delivered on 25
May 2026. Mr Kumar has 30 days to appeal to the Fiji Court of Appeal.
๐๐๐//
