|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Vanuatu Ombudsman's Reports |
REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
PUBLIC REPORT
ON APPOINTMENT OF
RESORT LAS VEGAS GROUP
AS AGENT FOR “IMMIGRATION SCHEME FOR VANUATU” AND
ON THE
CONDUCT OF PRIME MINISTER RT HON SERGE VOHOR AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS MINISTER HON VIDAL SOKSOK
IN ASSISTING THE GRANT OF CITIZENSHIP AND ISSUE OF ORDINARY AND OFFICIAL PASSPORTS
TO
MR JAE YONG (RICHARD) JUNG
3rd December 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREAMBLE
1. SUMMARY
2. JURISDICTION
3. PRELIMINARY REPORT
4. APPLICABLE LAW
Granting of Citizenship
Citizenship Commission
Passports
Principle Passport Officer
Legal basis for the issue of Diplomatic and Official passports
Penal Code [Cap 135]
Conspiracy
Forgery
Uttering a forged document
False Pretence
Complicity
5. CHRONOLOGY OF FACTS WITH COMMENTARY
Introduction
MrJung brings his proposal to Solomon Islands who reject it and then to Vanuatu
Mr. Jung seeks citizenship from Prime Minister Vohor, gets it and obtains a Vanuatu passport (April 19997)
Mr. Jung markets the Immigration Scheme, gets appointed as "exclusive agent" by Messrs Soksok Vohor, signs a contract to sell passports with another Australian company (June-July 1997)
The Council of Ministers appoint Mr Jung as "Trade Commissioner" approve issue to him of an Official Vanuatu passport and Mr Sese, Director of the Foreign Affairs Department, then issues Mr Jung an Official Passport (September 1997)
Failure to check Mr Jung's history and what the Ombudsman's Office learnt about Mr Jung
6. FINDINGS
A. Grant of Citizenship and Ordinary Vanuatu Passport to Mr Jung & Status of Citizenship Committee and Principal Immigration Officer to Issue Passports
Finding No. 1: THE PRIME MINISTER RT. HON SERGE VOHOR acted unlawfully to recommend and/or direct Mr Manwo Kepoue to issue Mr. Jung citizenship
Finding No. 2: JOHN MARK BELL AND KEPOUE MANWO demonstrated incompetence and lack of independence and acted unlawfully in following the Prime Minister's unlawful recommendation and/or direction to grant citizenship to Mr. Jung.
Finding No. 3: Grant of citizenship to Mr. Jung therefore null and void ab initio (from the date of issue) and of no legal effect
Finding No. 4: ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE negligent in failing to arrange gazetting of President's appointment of Citizenship Committee (refer 4.9 – 4.11 above)
Finding No. 5: MR MANWO KEPOUE put improper pressure on the Principal Immigration Officer to issue Mr. Jung with a passport.
Finding No. 6: Ordinary passport of Mr. Jung is null and void ab initio (from the date of issue)
Finding No. 7: PRINCIPAL IMMIGRATION OFFICER has no legal ability to issue Vanuatu passports (refer 4.14-4.16 above)
B. Mr. Jung's and Resort Las Vegas' Immigration Scheme and their Appointment as Executive Agent on behalf of the People of Vanuatu
Finding No.1: COUNCIL OF MINISTERS September 1997's approval of Mr. Jung as Trade Commissioner and 8 September 1997 appointment by Messrs Vohor and Soksok was unreasonable. Incompetent and irresponsible (refer 5.26-5.28)
Finding No. 2: MR SOKSOK'S direction through Mr Maliu, his first secretary, to the department of Foreign Affairs to issue Mr Jung with an Official Passport was unreasonable and improper
Finding No. 3: MR JEAN SESE was incompetent and acted unlawfully to follow Mr Soksok's direction to issue Mr Jung with an Official Vanuatu Passport
Finding No. 4: The Official Passport given to Mr Jung is void ab initio (from the date of issue)
7. REPLIES
Citizenship Commission
Mr Sese, Director of Foreign Affairs
Mr Jae Yong Jung/Resort Las Vegas Group Corporation
Hon Vidal Soksok
Messrs Vohor, Kepoue, Bell and the Attorney General's chambers
8. RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1: Referral of the matter of issue of citizenship and ordinary passport to Mr Jung to the Public Prosecutor and Police Commissioner pursuant to s. 25 (1) of the Ombudsman Act
Recommendation 2: Mr Jung's citizenship certificate and ordinary and official passports to be surrendered and formally invalidated by destruction of the same – refer finding A No. 3 (6.4) and finding A No. 6 (6.9) and finding C No. 4 (6.23)
Recommendation 3: The Public Service Commission to within 30 days of the date of this report to convene a disciplinary hearing by the Public Service Discipline Board concerning Mr Sese allowing the issue of an official passport to Mr Jung
Recommendation 4: Mr Hon. Vidal Soksok to resign from Foreign Affairs Portfolio
Recommendation 5: Rt Hon. Serge Vohor to resign as Prime Minister
Recommendation 6: Letters of appointment of Mr. Jung as exclusive agent for Immigration Scheme and Trade Commissioner be formally invalidated
Recommendation 7: The Minister of Home Affairs appoint Principal Passport Officer
Recommendation 8: The Attorney General's Chambers put in place a system to make sure all statutory notices are gazetted in a timely fashion (refer 4.10-4.11)
Recommendation 9: Citizenship Committee to keep minutes of its proceedings
Recommendation 10: President to consider appointing the new Principal Immigration Officer to the Citizenship Committee
-----------------------------------
“the getting of treasures by a lying tongue is a vanity tossed to and from of them that seek death”
Proverbs 21 v 6.
Foreigners, who hear that one of the requirements to secure Vanuatu citizenship is that they should be residents for 10 years, are astonished at this length of time since countries such as Australia require only 2 years and New Zealand 3 years before citizenship is granted.
They think that there must be something remarkable about what is on offer, so that they are even more surprised when they realise just how little is made available to expatriate citizens. There is very limited health services, none in the islands, limited educational and hospital facilities and only a pleasant climate, secrecy within a tax haven situation and a relatively low level of crime. Whatever the process of reasoning behind this decision making it difficult to secure citizenship in a country which desperately needs foreign aid and investment, it is not difficult to understand the astonishment when it is learned that passports and citizenships are secretly being offered and sold to individuals and groups who do not satisfy even the minimum requirement for those wishing to reside in Vanuatu for more than 4 months, particularly the requirement that they must have a clean police record.
This report illustrates the lengths that Vanuatu’s leaders have been prepared to go in the hope of illegal gain.
It is a story of the abuse of power misuse of authority, deviousness and corruption -- all the opposite of good governance, open accountability, the extensive reform program about which so much talk has been expended. It is a debasement of the value of citizenship, and an illustration of the kind of activities pursued by our leaders in a year when almost not one bill was passed through the ordinary sessions of Parliament despite the cost of attendance allowances and expenses for MPs.
Vanuatu is fortunate in that it has a Financial Centre with a wealth of experience and ability in financial matters. Yet, time after time, political leaders deliberately avoid consulting these people with training and education. Instead they prefer to imagine that they, with little training or education, are able to take financial decisions which have repercussions in an outside world of whose working they know little.
Large sums of public money are lost again and again because of this arrogance and this ignorance of the world-wide operations of skilful and crooked operators who take advantage of unskilled and inexperienced leaders with no record of successful business operation.
Leaders have put their signatures to agreements which cannot bear the examination of honest consultants and there is little attempt to contact the Police at the banks in the home countries of these con-men. Large fees are promised, absurdly high returns are suggested, and wisdom makes no appearance. It is hoped that this report will bring about more caution in the future.
1.1 This report is about the appointment on 20 June 1997 by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Hon Vidal Soksok on Prime Minister Rt. Hon Serge Vohor’s direction of a company called Resort Las Vegas Group (trading as South Pacific Immigration Authority) (“Resort Las Vegas”) as agent for “Immigration Scheme for Vanuatu”. A true copy of Mr Soksok’s letter appointing Resort Las Vegas is annexed as exhibit 1 to this report. The man behind Resort Las Vegas is a South Korean called Mr Jae Yong (Richard) JUNG (also known as Sung Ho JUNG) who purports to hold dual citizenship with South Korea and Vanuatu. Mr JUNG is a convicted criminal in South Korea and currently wanted by South Korean authorities on charges of counterfeiting (forgery) of valuable securities.
1.2 Following its appointment by Minister Soksok, Resort Las Vegas entered into a contract with a third party called Sydney Economic & Trade Centre Pty Ltd (“SETC”) on 14 July 1997. A copy of the contract is annexed as exhibit 2 to this preliminary report.
1.3 This contract states that it is
about the project conducted on behalf of the Government of Vanuatu, in which a number of people is [sic - are] invited to become a citizen either [sic-or] a permanent resident to the country of Vanuatu.
1.4 I enquired into the appointment of Resort Las Vegas and the matters set out below because the legal position in Vanuatu is very clear. Under article 12 of the Constitution a person can only apply for citizenship after living continuously in Vanuatu for 10 years.
1.5 Despite the legal position in Vanuatu being very clear, under the Resort Las Vegas/SETC contract, it is contemplated that sixty thousand (60,000) - eighty thousand (80,000) citizenships are to be sold (refer clauses 5 and 6 of the contract. The contract furthermore at clause 12 states:
. . . For reference, once a family has PR (“permanent residency”) they are entitled to apply for citizenship 10 years no matter [whether] they lived here in Vanuatu or not.”
(my emphasis and underlining added) - one residency/citizenship can apply to more than one person.
1.6 On any analysis (quite apart from the illegality of the proposal) the possibility of granting up to one hundred and sixty thousand (160,000) citizenships in the next 10 years is absurd. This is equivalent to doubling the existing population of Vanuatu, all of whom would be entitled to vote and live in Vanuatu.
1.7 On this basis I have made the finding (amongst other findings) that Minister Vidal Soksok and Prime Minister Vohor exercised very poor judgment in making the appointment of Resort Las Vegas. This is because the appointed agent of the People of Vanuatu has entered into a contract that illegally provides for the potential sale of Vanuatu citizenships to 160,000 overseas persons.
1.8 This report also is about how Mr Jung:
(a) on 29 April 1997 was granted citizenship by Mr Jean Mark Bell and Mr Kepoue Manwo (neither of whom were members of the Citizenship Commission) despite the fact that:
(i) he had not been resident in Vanuatu continuously for the previous 10 years; and
(ii) did not intend giving up his South Korean citizenship;
(a true copy of Mr Jung’s Citizenship Certificate is annexed as exhibit 3 to this preliminary report)
(b) obtained a Vanuatu ordinary passport (a true copy of Mr Jung’s Vanuatu passport is annexed to this report as exhibit 4);
(c) on 8 September 1997 was appointed by the Prime Minister, Rt. Hon Serge Vohor and Foreign Affairs Minister Soksok as Vanuatu’s “Trade Commissioner” to South Korea (a true copy of Mr Vohor’s and Mr Soksok’s letters of appointment are annexed as exhibits 5 and 6); and
(d) obtained from the Foreign Affairs Department on or about 10 September an official Vanuatu passport
1.9 This report reveals that Mr Jung obtained citizenship and his Vanuatu passport illegally with the active involvement of the Prime Minister Vohor. Secondly, his appointment as “Trade Commissioner” to South Korea is of most dubious value to Vanuatu given that Mr Jung has been resident in Vanuatu trying to set up his “Immigration Scheme” and is unqualified for the post not to mention his criminal history. Amongst the findings I have made is that Messrs Vohor, Bell and Kepoue may have committed a number of criminal acts including forgery, criminal conspiracy and being accomplices to uttering a forged document as result of the issue of a citizenship certificate and ordinary passport to Mr Jung.
1.10 As noted what makes this whole story very concerning is that Mr Jung is a fugitive from justice having escaped from South Korea on 24 September 1992. Mr Jung is wanted on charges of counterfeiting valuable securities by the South Korean Police (carrying a penalty of up to ten years’ jail in South Korea). He is also a convicted criminal including having being imprisoned for three years for special robbery of military goods. It appears that because basic checks (and in particular Police Clearance from South Korea) were not done by the Prime Minister’s Office, the Ministry and Department of Foreign Affairs, Vanuatu has ended up giving a fugitive from justice a safe haven plus been convinced to agree to enter into a Immigration Scheme that does not follow Vanuatu’s laws and Constitution.
1.11 The final insult to the People of Vanuatu is that, following the Ombudsman’s discovery about Mr Jung’s history and his arrest by Vanuatu Police, 17 members of Vanuatu’s Parliament and three Ministers (including Prime Minister Vohor) sent letters to the South Korean Embassy in Papua New Guinea seeking a pardon for Mr Jung from the South Korean Government. (This is the subject of a separate investigation of the Office of the Ombudsman)
2.1 Pursuant to art 62 of the Constitution and s14 of the Ombudsman Act No. 14 of 1995 (“Act”) I have jurisdiction to enquire into the conduct of certain public bodies or persons on receiving a complaint or on my own initiative. “Leaders” under art 68 of the Constitution include Members of Parliament and Ministers. Hon Vidal Soksok and Rt. Hon Serge Vohor are both Ministers (and public servants).
2.2 Under s 14(1) (d) of the Ombudsman Act the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to enquire into suspected breaches of the Leadership Code (chapter 10 of the Constitution) by leaders. The jurisdiction of the Ombudsman in this regard was recently confirmed by the Supreme Court of Vanuatu in the case of Virelalala & others v Ombudsman (unreported, Civil Case No 4 of 1997).
2.3 Additionally, the Citizenship Committee and its members:
fall within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman under art 62(2), s 14(1) (ii) and/or s 14(1) (iii) (B) (Citizenship Committee is a public authority/Government body or “other body”) and s 14(2) (f) (members of statutory authorities’ boards).
2.4 The Department of Foreign Affairs falls within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction pursuant to art 62(2) of the Constitution because it is a ministerial department. The director of the Foreign Affairs Department, Mr Jean Sese, falls within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction by reason of s 14(2) (g) of the Ombudsman Act as he is a Head of a Department.
2.5 Mr John Mark Bell, former Principal Immigration Officer and Mr Kepoue, a public servant also fall within the Ombudsman jurisdiction under the Act.
3.1 A secret preliminary report was sent to the following persons:
* marks those who replied
3.2 The purpose of the preliminary report was to obtain comment and submissions from those complained against and/or affected. By seeking such reply the Ombudsman discharges his or her obligations under art 62(4) of the Constitution and s19 (5) of the Act.
3.3 The written replies of Mr Sese, Mr Jung and Mr Soksok are attached to the end of this report and are also commented on in section 7. Those who did not reply must be taken as having accepted the facts as stated.
4.1 Mr Jung’s citizenship certificate states that he was granted citizenship pursuant to S 12 of the Citizenship Act [Cap 112].
4.2 S12 of the Citizenship Act provides the machinery for adult persons to apply for citizenship by naturalisation. S 12(2) provides 8 conditions that all have to be met before a person can obtain citizenship by naturalisation. Of these 8 conditions, three of these are that the applicant:
4.3 If a person cannot satisfy these above three basic conditions, together with the other five, a person cannot become a citizen of the Republic of Vanuatu. This is the reason why the proposal of Resort Las Vegas was and is illegal. It provided that people could become citizens of Vanuatu without even living in Vanuatu and obtain passports.
4.4 The other result of s 12 of the Citizenship Act and article 12 of Vanuatu’s Constitution is that if a person has been granted a Citizenship Certificate without meeting all of the 8 criteria the certificate is without any legal basis and is therefore null and void ab initio (i.e. null and void from the time that it was issued) and the person is not a citizen of Vanuatu.
4.5 It should also be noted that the grant of citizenships by naturalisation (i.e. under s 12) is done by the Citizenship Commission alone (refer s 12(2) and schedule 2 of the Citizenship Act). The Prime Minister and the President have no involvement whatsoever.
4.6 S 2 of the Citizenship Act [Cap 112] provides for the Citizenship Commission as follows:
There is hereby established a Commission to be known as the Citizenship Commission.
4.7 The role of the Citizenship Commission is to consider applications for citizenship by naturalisation under s 12 of the Citizenship Act (see 4.2 above).
4.8 S 3 of the Citizenship Act provides for membership, appointment and qualification of persons to the Citizenship Commission as follows:
(i) The Commission shall consist of a Chairman and not less than 4 nor more than 6 other members all appointed by the president on the advice of the Prime Minister.
(ii) Subject to subsection (i) members of the Commission shall hold office for a period of 3 years and shall be eligible for reappointment.
(iii) A person shall not be eligible to be appointed a member of the Commission unless he is a citizen of Vanuatu.
4.9 The Ombudsman’s Office understands that on 8 July 1996, the President appointed the following as members to the Citizenship Commission:
4.10 The notice of appointments was not however gazetted until 22 September 1997 (after the Ombudsman’s Office had been requested by certain complainants to enquire into allegations of passport selling). Appointments under Vanuatu law are mandatorily required to be gazetted per s 13 of the Interpretation Act [Cap 132]. The previous Board’s appointments for three years expired on 18 February 1996. A copy of the gazetted notice of 22 September 1997 is annexed to this report and marked 7.
4.11 It therefore appears that there was not a validly constituted Citizenship Commission from 19 February 1996 until 22 September 1997. As such, any citizenship certificates issued between 19 February 1996 until 22 September 1997 are voidable (this means could be made invalid).
4.12 S 3(1) of the Passports Act [Cap 108] provides that only a citizen of Vanuatu is entitled to apply for a Vanuatu passport. If you are not a citizen of Vanuatu you cannot apply for or be issued with a Vanuatu passport. If a person does not qualify for citizenship but the Principal Passport Officer issues a passport to such a person that passport is void ab initio (i.e. null and void from the time that it was issued) and therefore cannot be legally used for travel or any other purpose.
4.13 It is to be noted that the officer responsible under Vanuatu law for the issue of passports in Vanuatu is the Principal Passport Officer. For many years it has been the practice that the Principal Immigration Officer has also acted as the Principal Passport Officer and issued passports. There is no legal barrier to the Principal Immigration Officer doing this job and also holding the post of Principal Passport Officer.
4.14 They are however two separate posts. Under Vanuatu law the Principal Passport Officer is appointed by the Minister of Home Affairs (s 2 of the Passports Act) and the Principal Immigration Officer is appointed by the Police Commissioner or Police Services Commission. However, it appears that since independence there has been no appointment of a Principal Passport Officer since the last appointment of Mr Haynes in the early 1980s.
4.15 The consequence of this is that until a Principal Passport Officer is appointed no Vanuatu passports can be issued to anyone. Those passports issued before are also voidable but the vast majority are likely to be valid because they were issued in good faith.
Legal basis for the issue of Diplomatic and Official passports
4.16 S 2 of the Diplomatic and Official Passports [Cap 179] states:
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, an officer authorised in that behalf by the Minister may issue Vanuatu diplomatic and official passports.
(2) Diplomatic and official passports shall be issued in the name of the Minister responsible for the foreign affairs of the Republic of Vanuatu and shall be in such forms as are prescribed by the Minister.
(3) No fee shall be charged for the issue of diplomatic and official passports
4.17 Schedule 1 and schedule 2 specify exhaustively the only people to whom diplomatic and official passports can be issued. These schedules provide as follows:
SCHEDULE 1
(section 1)
CATEGORIES OF PERSONS ENTITLED TO DIPLOMATIC PASSPORTS
The President of the Republic
The Prime Minister
The Speaker of Parliament
Government Ministers
Vanuatu Ambassadors
Vanuatu High Commissioners
Foreign Affairs personnel: diplomatic and consular staff
Leader of a delegation or sole Vanuatu representative at international conference or bilateral or multilateral negotiations
Diplomatic couriers
Persons in respect of whom the Minister considers exceptional circumstances apply
Spouses of persons granted Diplomatic Passports provided they are travelling on duty at Government expense
SCHEDULE 2
(Section 1)
CATEGORIES OF PERSONS ENTITLED TO OFFICIAL PASSPORTS
Members of Parliament
Chief Justice
Attorney General
Judges of the Supreme Court
Solicitor General
Magistrates
Commissioner of Police
Ombudsman
Chairman of the National Council of Chiefs
Officers of Vanuatu Government and Parliament
Persons in respect of whom the Minister considers exceptional circumstances apply
Spouses of persons granted Official Passports provided they are travelling on duty at Government expense
4.18 Therefore the two important requirements are that:
(a) The official or diplomatic passport is issued by an officer authorised by the Foreign Affairs Minister[1]. (In that regard there should be a written and gazetted instrument appointing and authorising an officer of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to issue these types of passports); and
(b) Official passports and diplomatic passports can only be issued to persons set out in the categories stated in schedule 1 or schedule 2 by the appointed officer per (a) above.
4.19 There is no clear legal basis to issue “Trade Commissioners” with a diplomatic passport or official passport. I do not consider Mr Jung’s appointment as a “Trade Commissioner” falls within “Officers of Government and Parliament” as this comprehends posts such as the Clerk of Parliament and political secretaries, all of whom are paid by the Vanuatu government. Mr Jung’s post was to be unpaid. The only other possible basis one must consider Trade Commissioner is whether these classes of person fall within “Persons in respect of whom the Minister considers exceptional circumstances apply.” It is difficult to see how Trade Commissioners would fall into this exception.
4.20 Two other points should also be noted:
(a) The Consular Relations Act [Cap 200] also, which adopts the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (24/04/63) makes no reference to the issue of diplomatic and official passports to Trade Commissioners; and
(b) On the assumption that a Trade Commissioner is a type of Consul or Diplomat, the appointment does not become effective until the receiving State (South Korea in this case) agrees and accepts the nomination of the sending state (Vanuatu in this case). This requirement is specified at item 1 in Vanuatu Council of Ministers’ own written criteria on appointments of Honorary Consuls. A copy of the criteria is annexed as exhibit 8.
4.21 Set out below are a number of offences under the Penal Code. The reason these have been included is that it is very possible that the facts, as they are revealed, may constitute criminal offending by one or more of the persons involved. Where that is so, this is referred to in the findings in section 6 below.
Conspiracy
4.22 CAP 135 Section 29 of the Penal Code defines a conspiracy to have occurred when there is:
An agreement, express or implied, between two or more persons to do an act which, if done, even by the person, would constitute a criminal offence.
Forgery
4.23 Section 139 defines forgery and S 140 makes forgery an offence. Sections 139 and 140 state as follows:
FORGERY DEFINED
(1) Forgery is making a false document, knowing it to be false, with the intent that it shall in any way be used or acted upon as genuine, whether within the Republic or not, or that some person shall be induced by the belief that it is genuine to do or refrain from doing anything, whether within the Republic or not.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the expression "making a false document" includes making any material alteration in a genuine document, whether by addi-tion, insertion, obliteration, erasure, removal or otherwise.
(3) For the purposes of this section the expression "false document" means a docu-ment—
(a) of which the whole or any material part purports to be made by any person who did not make it or authorise its making;
(b) of which the whole or any material part purports to be made on behalf of any person who did not authorise its making;
(c) in which, though it purports to be made by the person who did in fact make it or authorise its making, or purports to be made on behalf of the person who did in fact authorise its making, the time or place of its making, whether either is material, or any number or distinguishing mark identifying the docu-ment, whether either is material, is falsely stated;
(d) of which the whole or some material part purports to be made by a fictitious or deceased person, or purports to be made on behalf of any such person; or which is made in the name of an existing person, either by him or by his authority, with the intention that it should pass as being made by some person, real or fictitious, other than the person who makes or authorises it.
(4) It is immaterial in what language a document is expressed or in what country or place and whether within or beyond the Republic it is expressed to take effect.
(5) The crossing of any cheque, banker's draft, post office money order, postal order or other document the crossing of which is authorised or recognized by law, is a material part of such document.
PROHIBITION OF FORGERY
140. No person shall commit forgery.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years.
Uttering a forged document
4.24 A forged document cannot be knowingly used. To do so constitutes the offence of “uttering” a forged document which s 141 prohibits in the following way:
UTTERING FORGED DOCUMENTS
141. No person, knowing a document to be forged, shall—
(a) use, deal with, or act upon it as if it were genuine;
(b) cause any person to use, deal with, act upon it as if it were genuine.
False Pretence
4.25 CAP 135 Section 124 of the Penal Code states that:
Every person obtains by false pretences who, by a false pretence, that is to say, any representation made by words, writing or conduct, of a matter of fact, either past or present, which representation is false in fact and which the person making it knows to be false, or does not believe to be true with intent to defraud, either directly or indirectly, obtains possession of or title to anything capable of being stolen or procures anything capable of being delivered to any person other than himself.
Complicity
4.25 A person cannot assist another in committing a crime. S 30 of the Penal Code makes this an offence as follows:
Any person who aids, counsels or procures the commission of a criminal offence shall be guilty as an accomplice and may be charged and convicted as a principal offender.
5 CHRONOLOGY OF FACTS WITH COMMENTARY
Introduction
5.1 From time to time throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the Council of Ministers have considered proposals put to them for the purpose of having people from other countries come to live in Vanuatu as residents. Eventually such people would be able to apply for citizenship after 10 years. One of these was a proposal to have Vietnamese refugees come and live in Vanuatu. The idea in general is a good one because the new people would be able to come and work hard, bring their new skills and contribute to the economy. We all heard of the immigration/ investment proposal the government looked at last year that came with the proposed US$400 million development of Moso Island linked with citizenship promoted by convicted Australian businessperson, Mr John Avram. The Moso Island proposal did not have a residency requirement, but fortunately, presently seems to have disappeared.
5.2 In some places in Asia, especially in Hong Kong and Taiwan in the 1990s, there has been a desire by Asian people to get citizenship and passports from another country because of potential advantages. The advantages include:
(a) Having a country to go to if conditions in the home country became unfavourable. Hong Kong is an example. People not wanting to live under Chinese rule now that Hong Kong has returned to the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) can leave Hong Kong and come to Vanuatu if they hold a Vanuatu passport;
(b) People wishing to avoid compulsory military service can leave their home country and come to Vanuatu;
(c) For some Asian businesspeople doing business as a Ni-Vanuatu citizen may be better because they may not have to pay some taxes or tariffs that Asian countries impose on each other’s citizens for trade within Asia; and
(d) Simply a status symbol.
5.3 As a result of these types of advantages there is a market for the sale of citizenships and passports. Some other Pacific Island countries have already been involved in this market. These countries include Samoa, Tonga, Marshall Islands and Kiribati. The People of Vanuatu will be aware that allegations have been made that Vanuatu has also been involved in this. This is the subject of another separate enquiry of the Ombudsman’s Office.
Mr Jung brings his proposal to Solomon Islands who reject it and then to Vanuatu
5.4 Mr Jung put his proposal to the Solomon Islands’ Government. In that proposal Mr Jung represented to the Solomon Island’s Government that 100,000 foreign people would become citizens (but not resident) of the Solomons and that “the government can get a direct 500 million US dollars income within the 2-3 years from the approval date.” Mr Jung also said in his proposal that 10-15% of these new citizens would visit the Solomons and result in another US$10,800,000 each year for the Solomon’s government. Mr Jung stated that new roads and buildings and possibly a new airport would be constructed in Honiara. Despite Mr Jung’s promises of huge amounts of money flowing into the Solomon Islands the Government of the Solomon Islands rejected Mr Jung’s immigration proposal. A copy of the proposal Mr Jung says he put to the Solomon Islands is annexed to this report as 9.
5.5 Mr Jung was the most recent foreigner to put a proposal to the Vanuatu Government. The first person he put the proposal to was the Prime Minister, Mr Vohor. He says he did this in about July 1996 both in person and following it up by telephone calls. Mr Jung states that the Prime Minister mentioned to him that there may be legal difficulties with the proposal but the government would do its best to put the proposal through. He also discussed it on a couple of trips to Vanuatu with the former Foreign Affairs Minister, Hon Willie Jimmy in November 1996, February and April 1997. Mr Jimmy apparently did not show much interest in the proposal nor did Mr Jimmy give Mr Jung much of his time as Mr Jimmy apparently considered the legal position made the proposal difficult to get off the ground.
5.6 In or around 19 March 1997 Mr Jung sent to the then Attorney General a letter and proposed a contract between Resort Las Vegas and the Prime Minister, Foreign Affairs Minister and Attorney General on behalf of the Government. The contract provided for the sale of up to 80,000 citizenships. In his letter Mr Jung encouraged the Attorney General to have the Council of Ministers submit a Bill to Parliament to change the law to allow for the sale of citizenships. Copies of the letter and contract are annexed as 10 and 11. It is important to note that Mr Jung therefore knew at this time (in March 1997) that sales of citizenships and therefore passports was not legally possible in Vanuatu.
5.7 Mr Jung found that Mr Soksok, the new Foreign Affairs Minister was more prepared to consider his proposal in May 1997. Mr Jung says that he met with Mr Soksok regularly up to three times a week for the next two months. During this period Mr Jung was not required to provide his credentials as to his qualifications or experience to any of the three Ministers he met with. A copy of the proposal Mr Jung says he gave to the Prime Minister is annexed as 12.
Mr Jung seeks citizenship from Prime Minister Vohor, gets it and obtains a Vanuatu passport (April 1997)
5.8 Mr Jung says that he asked Mr Vohor whether it was possible to obtain “honorary citizenship” because it was inconvenient to keep having to renew his visitor’s permit. Mr Vohor apparently told Mr Jung that he would investigate the matter and come back to Mr Jung through Mr Kepoue Manwo, the apparent chairman of the Citizenship Commission.
5.9 Mr Jung’s enquiry about the question of citizenship was answered by Mr Manwo coming back to Mr Jung advising him that the Prime Minister had recommended to the Citizenship Commission that Mr Jung be granted honorary citizenship.
5.10 On 16 April 1997 Mr Jung made written application for citizenship in Vanuatu. A true copy of his application is annexed to this report and marked 13. The following is to be noted about the application:
(a) It is made under s 12 of the Citizenship Act - which is citizenship by naturalisation (though someone has handwritten in the top right corner on page 1 the words “Honorary Citizenship”);
(b) Most of the application form has been left blank including question 1(a) in Section 3 on page 3 which asks:
Have you during a period of ten (10) years immediately preceding this application been ordinarily resident in Vanuatu?
(c) In answer to the question 1(b) on page 4 asking when did the applicant arrive in Vanuatu Mr Jung has answered that he arrived in Vanuatu in September 1996 (i.e. less than ten years before, only 8 months before);
(d) In answer to a question in Section 3 on page 4, question 5(b) which asks:
Explain the level of your investment.
Mr Jung has answered that the level of his investment is “USD 100m”; i.e. 100 million United States dollars or VT 11,859,000,000 (at 118.59vt/$US). No supporting documents were attached to the application to prove that Mr Jung had US$100 million to invest in Vanuatu, or had invested money in Vanuatu.
(e) In answer to the question 7(a) on page 5 which states:
Do you agree to renounce such citizenship or nationality in the event of your being granted Vanuatu citizenship?
Mr Jung has answered “No”.
5.11 On 29 April 1997 the Prime Minister, Mr Vohor, wrote to the President of the Republic, His Excellency Mr Jean Marie Leye Leneclau as follows:
Your Excellency
Subject: Honorary Citizenship to Mr Richard Chung
I, the undersigned RIALUTH Serge VOHOR, Prime Minister of the Government of Vanuatu, hereby advice your honour to confer honorary citizenship to Mr Richard CHUNG, pursuant to CAP. 112, PART V, Section 20.
Yours sincerely
HONOURABLE RIALUTH Serge VOHOR
PRIME MINISTER
GOVERNMENT OF VANUATU
5.12 It is to be noted that Mr Vohor referred to s 20 of the Citizenship Act and not s 12 which was the section that Mr Jung applied under. S 20 deals with honorary citizenship whereas s 12 deals with citizenship by naturalisation. To receive the honour of honorary citizenship a person does not have to live in Vanuatu for ten years BUT it does not give the honorary citizen any legal rights such as the ability to apply for a passport.
5.13 Despite Mr Jung’s application not being completed and containing answers which meant that he could not qualify for citizenship, including the fact:
(a) That he had not lived in Vanuatu for 10 years, but only 8 months; and
(b) That he did not intend renouncing his South Korean citizenship (as required by art 12 of Vanuatu’s Constitution in that Vanuatu does not recognise dual nationality nor) does South Korea;
Mr Jung Vanuatu was granted citizenship and issued with a certificate. A copy of Mr Jung’s citizenship certificate is annexed as exhibit 3. It is supposedly signed by the chairman of the Citizenship Commission and another member. The signatures are not the signatures of the Chairman of the Citizenship Committee and another member of the Citizenship Committee. They are the signatures of Mr Manwo Kepoue (who signed as “Chairman”) and Mr Jean Mark Bell (who signed as “Member”). Neither Mr Kepoue nor Mr Bell are members or ever have been members of the Citizenship Commission. Despite public perceptions there are no appointment letters for either of them and they never held these positions. In my view Mr Jung’s certificate is a false document in terms of s 139(3) of the Penal Code (refer 4.23 above).
5.14 The President of the Republic His Excellency Jean Marie Leye Lenelcau has also signed the certificate. The President was merely acting on the advice of the Prime Minister of 29 April 1997 (refer 5.11 above). It appears that he was misled into signing the certificate as a result of the Prime Minister’s letter of 29 April stating that Mr Jung was being conferred honorary citizenship and not citizenship by naturalisation as the certificate provides for.
5.15 The text of the certificate (in English) reads as follows:
It is hereby certified that Mr Jung Richard J. Y. was on the twenty ninth day of April 1997 granted Citizenship in accordance with the Constitution and Section 12 of Citizenship Regulation 1980.
(my emphasis added)
5.16 Contrary to what is stated in the certificate (and contrary to what Mr Vohor told the President) Mr Jung’s citizenship was not granted in accordance with the Constitution and section 12 of the Citizenship Regulation [Act]. S 12 and the Constitution allow for only residents who have lived continuously in Vanuatu for the last 10 years to be naturalised as Vanuatu citizenship. Mr Jung did not meet the criteria and therefore Mr Jung’s certificate is without any basis in law and is void ab initio (from the date of its issue). Mr Jung is not a citizen of Vanuatu.
5.17 Soon after, Mr Jung then applied for a Vanuatu passport. A copy of his application is annexed and marked 14. The application for a passport was sent to the Principal Immigration Officer, Mr John Mark Bell with a covering letter dated 30 April 1997 from Mr Manwo Kepoue. In the letter Mr Kepoue asks Mr Bell to issue Mr Jung with a passport as follows:
Dear Sir
Re: MR RICHARD J. Y. JUNG
This is to confirm that the above name was approved by naturalisation by the President of the Republic of Vanuatu during April 1997 as an Honorary Citizen and Vanuatu Citizenship Certificate has been signed by this office from the date of this letter.
Would you proceed if requested to issue him with a Vanuatu Passport.
Yours sincerely
MANWO H. Xepoue
Secretary
Citizenship Office
cc: chrono
Mr Richard J. Y. JUNG
5.18 I consider it most unusual for Mr Kepoue to have written specifically asking Mr Bell to issue Mr Jung with a passport and also to copy that advice to Mr Jung. Quite clearly Mr Jung was the subject of very special treatment.
5.19 On 5 May 1997 Mr Jung was duly issued with a Vanuatu passport. A true copy of this passport is annexed as 4. Because Mr Jung is not a Vanuatu citizen (see 5.13 above) his passport should not have been issued to him and thus his passport is not valid for any purpose.
Mr Jung markets the Immigration Scheme, gets appointed as “exclusive agent” by Messrs Soksok and Vohor, signs a contract to sell passports with another Australian company (June-July 1997)
5.20 Mr Jung’s meetings with Foreign Affairs Minister Soksok started to produce results in June 1997. He apparently had explained to the Minister that he was planning to build a US$100 million 350 bedroom hotel at Tukutuku on Efate. He also advised the Minister that the Government would receive VT 700,000 per passport sold but noted that unfortunately the legal position prevented the project from going ahead. A file note from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs dated 10 June 1997 records the contents of this discussion and a copy is annexed as 15. Within the file note (as translated) it records as follows:
Mr Jung mentioned however that he was negotiating with the former NUP supporters who had gone back to the VP in order to be on the government side and make up the 2/3 majority required to pass the Vanuatu citizenship project Bill.
He explained that such a Vanuatu Citizenship program for 80 thousand people would bring 40 Billion VT to the Government.
5.21 In his Ombudsman interview Mr Jung revealed that to date he has:
(a) Not instructed an architect to design the hotel;
(b) Not briefed or contracted with a construction company to build the proposed hotel;
(c) Not had any contact with a hotel management company to run the hotel he told the Minister he planned to build;
(d) No experience in the hotel industry; and
(e) No experience in the construction or property development industries
5.22 Just over a week later on 19 June 1997 the Council of Ministers had approved the scheme. In their memorandum discussing the scheme presented by Mr Soksok, the Minister says:
This scheme is to provide permanent residency permit to potential investors for a fee of 700.000 vatu for each family. This operation will generate 280 millions of vatu each year if we give out annually 4000 passports.
(emphasis added)
A copy of Mr Soksok’s memorandum approved on 19 June 1997 is annexed and marked 16. At the end of the memorandum it is noted that the Council of Ministers approve the nomination of an agent by Mr Soksok which was so approved. It is to be noted that passports could not be handed out as only citizens of Vanuatu are entitled to a Vanuatu passport according to the laws of Vanuatu. What the Council of Ministers proposed therefore was not legally possible and thus they could not approve it.
5.23 On 20 June 1997 (the day after the Council of Ministers met) Mr Jung’s company, Resort Las Vegas Group, was appointed by Mr Soksok as “Vanuatu Government Authorised and Exclusive Agent” to:
. . . manage the Vanuatu Permanent Residentship & Immigration Scheme for the benefit of the Vanuatu People
(emphasis added)
A true copy of the letter of appointment is annexed as 1.
5.24 Interestingly, before Mr Jung’s company was appointed as exclusive agent on 20 June 1997 he was already marketing the proposal two weeks beforehand to a company in Sydney, Australia. The Ombudsman’s Office obtained a copy of a facsimile sent by Mr Jung on 5 June 1997 to Mr Hyun Joon CHAN of Abram Corporation. This fax is written in Korean. The Ombudsman’s Office had it translated into English. It shows that Mr Jung was offering citizenship and passports for sale for US$15,500 (VT 1,856,000) and expected to be able to sell 10-15,000 Vanuatu citizenships in South Korea each year. Annexed marked 17 is a copy of the translation of Mr Jung’s fax to Abram Corporation.
5.25 It is to be recalled that the Vanuatu Government was to receive VT 700,000 per family application for residency whilst Mr Jung’s company was to receive VT1, 856,000 per person. This represents an extremely good profit for Resort Las Vegas who were to act “for the benefit of the Vanuatu People”. Finally, it is noted that the letter is signed by Mr Jung as “Vanuatu Government Authorized and Exclusive Agent” when in fact Resort Las Vegas was not an appointed agent until 15 days later. In his Ombudsman interview Mr Jung accepted that he had lied in the document.
5.26 On 14 July 1997 Resort Las Vegas entered into a contract with a third party called Sydney Economic & Trade Centre Pty Ltd (“SETC”). Under the contract SETC is what is known as a sub agent (effectively another middle man). The price for citizenship and “permanent residency” the price had increased from US$15,500 (as stated to Abram, see 5.24 above) to between US$17,000 to US$25,000 (almost VT 3,000,000).
5.27 A copy of the contract is annexed as exhibit 2 to this report. This contract states that it is “about the project conducted on behalf of the Government of Vanuatu, in which a number of people is [sic - are]] invited to become a citizen either a permanent resident to the country of Vanuatu.”
5.28 As noted in 1.3 above, despite the legal position in Vanuatu being very clear, under the Resort Las Vegas contract, it is contemplated that sixty thousand (60,000) -- eighty thousand (80,000) citizenships are to be sold (refer clauses 5 and 6 of the contract. The contract furthermore at clause 12 states:
“. . . For reference, once a family has PR (“permanent residency”) they are entitled to apply for citizenship 10 years no matter [whether] they lived here in Vanuatu or not.”
(my emphasis and underlining added)
5.29 Under this agreement the other significant point is that even though Mr Jung knew that it was not legally possibly (as evidenced by his letter to the Attorney General back in March 1997, refer 5.6 and exhibit 10 above) he nevertheless had his company, Vanuatu’s exclusive agent (of the People), offer to sell passports. In his Ombudsman’s interview, Mr Jung stated that the contract was not actually being enforced by the parties. Mr Jung said that the contract was “suspended” waiting for the law to change. I note that the contract is stated to be binding and by clause 18 is only valid for one year from 14 July 1997. Mr Jung was unable to produce any letters with SETC verifying his explanation. I do not accept Mr Jung’s explanation as I found him to be most unreliable.
The Council of Ministers appoint Mr Jung as “Trade Commissioner”, approve issue to him of an Official Vanuatu passport and Mr Sese, Director of the Foreign Affairs Department, then issues Mr Jung an Official passport (September 1997)
5.30 Sometime in early September the Council of Ministers met. At this meeting Mr Soksok submitted a memorandum recommending that Mr Jung be appointed Trade Commissioner to South Korea. According to the First Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mr Alfred Maliu, this followed Mr Jung’s verbal request to Prime Minister Vohor that he be appointed as a Trade Commissioner to South Korea. The reasons advanced in support by Mr Soksok to the Council of Ministers were as follows:
(a) Mr Jung was Korean and therefore he could “convince South Koreans who have confidence in him”;
(b) He had “wide experience” in trade; and
(c) He had some companies in New Zealand and Australia.
A CV prepared by Mr Jung, without any references or copies of qualifications was also submitted in support. True copies of Mr Soksok’s memorandum and Mr Jung’s CV are annexed as 18 and 19.
5.31 The Council of Ministers agreed with Mr Soksok’s recommendation and on 8 September 1997 Mr Soksok and Mr Vohor appointed Mr Jung as Vanuatu’s Trade Commissioner for a period of two years. The appointment is stated to be subject to written confirmation from the South Korean government - consistent with policy of the Council of Ministers and the Vienna Convention referred to above at paragraph 4.21(b) and exhibit 8. Copies of the appointment letters are annexed as 5 and 6. To date the Ombudsman’s Office has not been given a copy of any written approval of Mr Jung by the South Korean government.
5.32 Despite the fact that there does not appear to have been any approval received by the Vanuatu government from the South Korean government on or about 10 September 1997 Mr Soksok and his political secretary, Mr Alfred Maliu, made written application to the Foreign Affairs Department for Mr Jung to be issued with an Official passport. Mr Sese, likewise, without seeing any approval from the South Korean government, issued Mr Jung with an official passport. There was a delay of seven weeks between the request and the issue of the passport. A copy of the application is annexed as 20. At the bottom of page three of the application form, the following words appear:
IMPORTANT
DIPLOMATIC and OFFICIAL Passport will be issued only to those persons listed in the Schedules to the Diplomatic and Official Passports Act No 80 of 1984.
“Trade Commissioners” are not one of the persons listed in the Schedules to the Diplomatic and Official Passports Act No 80 of 1984 (refer 4.17 above).
Failure to check Mr Jung’s history and what the Ombudsman’s Office learnt about Mr Jung
5.33 It is noted that no checks were made by anyone in Government about Mr Jung. Had a Police Clearance record been sought the Government would have quickly learnt, as the Ombudsman did when making her enquiries, that Mr Jung is wanted by the South Korean Police for counterfeiting of valuable securities, a serious criminal offence.
5.34 The only check that was ever made was when the Foreign Affairs Ministry on 17 September 1997 (i.e. after Mr Jung had his Vanuatu passport, his Vanuatu Official passport and his company had been appointed “exclusive agent” for an Immigration Scheme he himself had promoted to the Government). At that time information was sought from Mr Jung as to how he could afford to finance a US$100 million hotel. The response was that Mr Jung had US$30 million himself and would obtain the balance US$70 million from Korean Exchange Bank and Korean Commercial Bank. Annexed as 21 and 22 are true copies of the Foreign Affairs Ministry’s letter dated 17 September 1997 and Mr Jung’s reply of 22 September 1997 (written by Resort Las Vegas’ manager Mr Daniel Kim, a Korean Australian working without a work permit in Vanuatu for Mr Jung).
5.35 When Mr Jung was interviewed at the Ombudsman’s Office he was required to, amongst other documents, to provide copies of:
(a) His qualifications;
(b) References or testimonials from previous business partners, employers and the like;
(c) His South Korean passport; and
(d) Some evidence that he was worth US$ 30 million as claimed.
5.36 Mr Jung has to date not been able to provide copies of any references or qualifications to the Ombudsman. He told the Ombudsman he sent his South Korean passport back to his brother in South Korea to get it renewed. He has been unable to date to provide any letter from the Passport Office in Seoul, South Korea saying that Mr Jung’s passport has been received there. He has been unable to provide any satisfactory evidence that he is worth US$30 million to the Ombudsman’s Office. Finally, Mr Jung did not mention to the Ombudsman that he was been wanted by Police back in his home country.
5.37 The Ombudsman’s Office comes to the conclusion that Mr Jung has not been honest in his dealings with Vanuatu’s Ministers and government officials. The Ministers in turn Messrs Vohor and Soksok, in particular have shown themselves to be both grossly incompetent and naive to have allowed all that has occurred to go unchecked. Other public servants, as detailed the next section, have shown themselves also to have been incompetent and naive.
6 FINDINGS
A. Grant Of Citizenship And Ordinary Vanuatu Passport To Mr Jung & Status Of Citizenship Committee And Principal Immigration Officer To Issue Passports
Finding No.1: THE PRIME MINISTER RT. HON SERGE VOHOR acted unlawfully to recommend and/or direct Mr Manwo Kepoue to issue Mr Jung citizenship
6.1 Mr Jung was issued with a certificate of Vanuatu citizenship pursuant to s 12 of the Citizenship Act (refer 4.1-4.2 above). This is citizenship by naturalisation. Citizenship by naturalisation requires the applicant, amongst other things, have lived in Vanuatu continuously for ten years. Applications are considered by the Citizenship Commission alone. The President and Prime Minister have no role whatsoever in the consideration of naturalisation applications.
6.2 The Ombudsman has had the legal position as stated above confirmed by the Attorney General. Mr Vohor did not obtain legal advice from the Attorney General’s Office. Prime Minister Vohor’s assistance to an applicant was both unlawful, improper and in my opinion contrary to certain provisions of the Penal Code (explained below). Effectively, Mr Vohor was granting Mr Jung a favour and giving him special treatment over other honest applicants. In doing this, the Prime Minister:
(a) subverted the whole process of applying for Vanuatu citizenship;
(b) acted contrary to the constitutional right of all persons to equal treatment under the law and administrative action per art 5(1) (j) of the Constitution;
(c) left the President of the Republic in an embarrassing position having advised the President to sign Mr Jung’s citizenship certificate when the President had no legal right to do so;
(d) as a result, fallen far below the standard expected of leaders of Vanuatu and left his own integrity open to question; and
(e) directed or recommended that John Mark Bell and Kepoue Manwo attend Citizenship Commission meetings and without the knowledge of the Citizenship Committee sign the Citizenship Certificate of Mr Jung; and
(f) may have committed the following criminal offences:
(i) participated in an conspiracy (refer 4.22) comprising himself, Messrs Bell, Kepoue and Jung to unlawfully obtain citizenship and a Vanuatu ordinary passport for Mr Jung;
(ii) been an accomplice (refer 4.28 above) to the crimes of:
Finding No. 2: JOHN MARK BELL AND KEPOUE MANWO, demonstrated incompetence and lack of independence and acted unlawfully in following the Prime Minister’s unlawful recommendation and/or direction to grant citizenship to Mr Jung.
6.3 As noted above in 4.1-4.5 and 6.2 Mr Jung did not qualify for Vanuatu citizenship. Additionally Messrs Bell and Manwo were not members of the Citizenship Committee. They had no business even attending meetings of this Citizenship Commission. The Prime Minister, Mr Vohor, had no business in giving Messrs Bell and Manwo any instructions in connection with citizenship matters. All of them were acting without any legal basis.
6.4 Mr Bell and Mr Manwo are the persons whose signatures appear on the Citizenship Commission certificate. However, none of the genuine members of the Citizenship Committee had ever heard the name of Mr Jung. They did not see or consider his citizenship application. Mr Jung’s citizenship certificate is a counterfeit or forged document in that it pretends or purports to be something that it is not. It strongly appears that they did this because of the direction or recommendation of the Prime Minister. In following this unlawful direction they demonstrated incompetence and lack of independence.
6.5 Accordingly, I consider that Messrs Kepoue and Bell may have committed the following criminal offences:
(a) Conspiracy (refer 4.22 above) with Messrs Vohor and Jung to unlawfully obtain citizenship and a passport for Mr Jung;
(b) Forgery (refer 4.23) - the Citizenship Certificate;
(c) Forgery -- Mr Jung’s ordinary passport (only Mr Bell);
(d) Complicity (i.e. as accomplices) to commit the following crimes:
Finding No. 3: Grant of citizenship to Mr Jung therefore null and void ab initio (from the date of issue) and of no legal effect
6.4 It follows therefore that Mr Jung’s certificate of citizenship is null and void ab initio.
Finding No. 4: ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE negligent in failing to arrange gazetting of President’s appointment of Citizenship Committee (refer 4.9 - 4.11 above)
6.5 Finally, it is to be recalled that at the time of the grant of Mr Jung’s (on or about 29 April 1997) certificate the Citizenship Commission was not lawfully established by reason of the fact that it was not gazetted. Responsibility for gazetting statutory appointments lies with the Attorney General’s Office.
6.6 The President appointed the Citizenship Committee on 8 July 1996 but these appointments were not gazetted until 22 September 1997 around the time that the Ombudsman’s Office had commenced its enquiries. Whilst failure to gazette a notice is at the lower end of the scale of negligence it is nevertheless careless and unacceptable. Care must be taken to ensure no statutory notices slip in the attention of the Attorney General’s Office in the future.
Finding No. 5: MR MANWO KEPOUE put improper pressure on the Principal Immigration Officer to issue Mr Jung with a passport.
6.7 Mr Kepoue’s letter to Mr Bell of 30 April 1997 (refer 5.14 above) was a nonsense because it said that Mr Jung had been naturalised and was at sometime an honorary citizen. You are one or the other. In addition, Honorary citizenship does give any legal right to a person to obtain a Vanuatu passport. It is an honour of ceremonial effect only. Because Mr Jung was not legally a naturalised citizen he had no legal right to apply for a passport. (This legal analysis was confirmed by the Attorney General to the Ombudsman during the course of the enquiry).
6.8 Therefore it was improper for Mr Kepoue to send a special letter with Mr Jung’s passport application to Mr Bell to get the passport for Mr Jung issued. Like the Prime Minister, Mr Kepoue has ignored the fact that under Vanuatu’s Constitution all people must be treated equally under the law and administrative action (refer 6.2 above). It is this conduct that also goes towards Mr Kepoue being an accomplice to the uttering of a forged document and Mr Bell committing forgery when he issued Mr Jung’s passport. No-one in this country is entitled to special favours be he or she a Minister or foreign businessperson or a grassroot. All are equal.
Finding No. 6 Ordinary passport of Mr Jung is null and void ab initio (from the date of issue)
6.9 It follows that because Mr Jung was not a citizen of Vanuatu he was not entitled to a Vanuatu passport. Since the issue of the passport to him never should have been done in the first place, the passport is of no legal effect.
Finding No. 7: PRINCIPAL IMMIGRATION OFFICER has no legal ability to issue Vanuatu passports (refer 4.14-4.16 above)
6.10 The only person in Vanuatu legally permitted to issue ordinary Vanuatu passports is the Principal Passport Officer. The Principal Immigration Officer has nothing to do with passports under the laws of Vanuatu and cannot issue passports.
6.11 Despite the legal position, for many years passports have been issued by the Principal Immigration Officer. These are probably de facto valid because they were generally issued in good faith. However, now that the Ombudsman’s Office has drawn this mistake to the Government’s attention (to which the Attorney General has agreed) any passports issued after 7 October 1997[2] are void and invalid in the Ombudsman’s opinion.
B. Mr Jung’s And Resort Las Vegas’ Immigration Scheme And Their Appointment As Exclusive Agent On Behalf Of The People Of Vanuatu
Finding No. 1: COUNCIL OF MINISTERS 19 & 20 June 1997’s approval of Mr Jung’s scheme and the appointment of his company Resort Las Vegas as “Exclusive Agent” was unreasonable, incompetent and irresponsible (refer 5.17-5.20 above)
6.12 In approving the Jung scheme the Council of Ministers:
(a) Failed to obtain any independent background check of the scheme’s promoter, Mr Jung, a 34 year old person:
(i) without any experience in immigration, hotel business, property development;
(ii) unable to produce to the Ombudsman any evidence of any formal qualifications; and
(ii) wanted by South Korean police for counterfeiting securities.
(b) Failed to investigate the scheme, bearing in mind that the Solomon Islands had rejected something almost identical put to that Government by the same man;
(c) Failed to consider the possible effects of the scheme on the People of Vanuatu, particularly, theoretically doubling the population; and
(d) Failed to adequately have regard to the legal position of the scheme, especially since Resort Las Vegas then entered into an illegal contract with Australian company, SETC, less than one month later (14 July 1997 refer 5.22-5.25 above, exhibit 2).
6.13 Hon Vidal Soksok and Rt. Hon Serge Vohor, being the prime movers to the rise of Mr Jung, must bear the greatest responsibility for this fiasco.
6.14 Finally, it is to be noted that quite apart from all the problems with this scheme the Council of Ministers sold the People of Vanuatu short. Vanuatu was to receive VT 700,000 per family (refer 5.18) whereas Mr Jung’s company stood to almost VT 3,000,000 per person (refer 5.22), thus making a gross profit of at least VT2,300,000 for a single person or VT 14,300,000 for a family of five. Mr Jung had been given a licence to print money.
C. Appointment of Mr Jung as Trade Commissioner to South Korea and the Issue to Him of an Official Passport
Finding No. 1: COUNCIL OF MINISTERS September 1997’s approval of Mr Jung as Trade Commissioner and 8 September 1997 appointment by Messrs Vohor and Soksok was unreasonable, incompetent and irresponsible (refer 5.26-5.28 above)
6.15 For the reasons set out above in 6.12 I consider that the Council of Ministers made a gross error in approving Mr Jung as a “Trade Commissioner”. What possible benefit this man, as a fugitive from justice from South Korea, could have done for Vanuatu in South Korea is unknown to me.
6.16 Again, Messrs Vohor and Soksok must take the major responsibility as the prime movers of this fiasco.
Finding No. 2: MR SOKSOK’S direction through Mr Maliu, his first secretary, to the department of Foreign Affairs to issue Mr Jung with an Official Passport was unreasonable and improper
6.17 For reasons which should be plain now, Mr Jung should not have been issued with an official passport. He did not qualify for one and one can only speculate the use he intends making of it.
6.18 Mr Soksok’s direction to give Mr Jung an official passport leaves his credibility and integrity greatly harmed. In my view he leaves himself open for the People of Vanuatu to consider him to be having been corrupted or at best grossly incompetent.
Finding No. 3: MR JEAN SESE was incompetent and acted unlawfully to follow Mr Soksok’s direction to issue Mr Jung with an Official Vanuatu passport
6.19 Mr Jung as a “Trade Commissioner” had no ability to obtain an official passport under the relevant law (refer 4.17-4.19 above) and the Council of Minister’s own criteria (refer 4.20(b) and exhibit 8). Additionally, no confirmation had been received from the South Korean Government so the appointment was not effective and thus a passport could not be issued for this further reason. The Foreign Affairs Minister had no legal ability to request (or issue) an official passport for Mr Jung in the circumstances.
6.20 Mr Sese should therefore have refused to issue the official passport to Mr Jung until he had received confirmation from the South Korean government approving the appointment. Remarkably, it was not until after Mr Sese had been interviewed by the Ombudsman’s Office and the official passport was given to Mr Jung that Mr Sese took the simple step of writing to the South Korean Embassy in Port Moresby. Annexed as 23 to this report is a copy of Mr Sese’s letter to the Korean Embassy in PNG dated 12 November 1997 (the day after he had been interviewed at the Ombudsman’s Office).
6.21 It is to be noted that on the application Mr Sese has handwritten on the application for Mr Jung’s Official passport (refer exhibit 20, page 2).
NB Minister’s approval was granted prior to DFA’s [Department of Foreign Affairs] consideration.
It appears that Mr Sese thought that if he made this note then he would somehow be excused from not following the law and not standing up to Mr Soksok. He is mistaken in that view. The days of the “yes men” are gone in Vanuatu. Plenty of other Departmental heads are not blindly accepting Ministerial directions (e.g. the Forestry Department non acceptance of the Council of Minister’s purported lifting of the round log export ban; the Director of Customs refusal to follow Ministerial direction to collect business licences fees early).
6.22 Mr Sese’s weak leadership on this occasion has significant possible consequences. That is that the legitimacy of official and diplomatic passports issued to persons genuinely representing Vanuatu overseas will be questioned and examined by Immigration authorities in other countries.
Finding No. 4: The Official Passport given to Mr Jung is void ab initio (from the date of issue)
6.23 “Trade Commissioners” are not persons entitled under Vanuatu law to an Official Vanuatu passport (refer 4.19 above). Mr Jung’s situation did not come within the exceptional circumstances category (the Minister made no reference to it). Therefore he should not have been given an official Vanuatu passport. There is also the additional reason that the Korean government had not confirmed their agreement with his appointment. In my opinion the official passport is invalid and null and void ab initio (from the date of issue).
7.1 I received replies from all members of the Commission except for one. In my preliminary report I had understood that the evidence suggested that the Citizenship Commission had issued Mr Jung his Citizenship Certificate and had done this unlawfully. All members of the Commission denied ever seeing an application from Mr Jung or even knowing his name. I accept that the members of the Citizenship Commission are telling the truth and therefore make no final finding. They should however keep minutes of all their meetings.
7.2 From what I learnt from these people it is apparent that when Mr Vohor became Prime Minister he started sending Mr Manwo Kepoue along to meetings of the Citizenship Commission. Mr Kepoue had no business being at these meetings and likewise Mr Bell had no business being there.
Mr Sese, Director of Foreign Affairs
7.3 The reply of Mr Sese is attached to this report. In his reply Mr Sese says that my finding of him being a “yes man” and that he showed “weak leaders” hip is “discriminatory”. He also points to the fact that there was a 7 week delay between the Minister’s request and the issue of the official passport to Mr Jung. He also says that the Ombudsman Office effectively hid the information about Mr Jung’s criminal history from his Department.
7.4 None of these points provide any excuse for Mr Sese’s incompetence and weakness in complying with what was an improper request from Mr Soksok. On examination of the facts there is no basis to what Mr Sese states. The principal reason is that Mr Sese has overlooked the fact that the actual date on which the official passport was issued to Mr Jung is irrelevant - the point is that he as Director of Foreign Affairs allowed that official passport to be given to Mr Jung without first having obtained approval from the Korean government accepting the appointment. The appointment letter of Mr Soksok on behalf of the Vanuatu Government (annexure 5) specifically states:
This nomination will be effective for a two year period as of the date the Vanuatu Government receives a written confirmation yourself and the Korean Government.
(emphasis added)
7.5 All Mr Sese had to do was to have asked the Minister or Mr Jung for a copy of Mr Jung’s appointment letter. On been given that document he would have seen that Mr Jung’s appointment was not effective until there was a letter from the Korean Government confirming it was happy with the appointment. Had Mr Sese done that, without a doubt the Korean Government would have rejected the nomination and furthermore may have requested the Vanuatu Government’s assistance to extradite Mr Jung back to Korea to face charges there. An official passport would not have been issued in those circumstances.
7.6 When the above basic facts are noted it is plain that Mr Sese’s complaints are illogical and without basis. Instead of accepting the fact that he made a mistake it is most disappointing that Mr Sese has chosen to attempt to make excuses and blame others. This does not reflect well on him.
7.7 As far as it may be relevant the Ombudsman’s Office did not learn about Mr Jung’s criminal history until 1 November 1997. This was two weeks after the Department of Foreign Affairs had issued Mr Jung with his official passport. In other words the damage had already been done by the time that the Ombudsman learnt of Mr Jung’s history.
Mr Jae Yong Jung/Resort Las Vegas Group Corporation
7.8 At the request of his lawyer Mr Baxter-Wright of Clayton Utz the Ombudsman extended the time for Mr Jung to reply to the preliminary report. A reply was accordingly received in person on 2 December 1997 and a copy is annexed to this report as “B”. It should be noted that Mr Jung is not within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and therefore there are no findings in respect to him in section 6. However, as is plain the facts recorded within this report do not reflect on Mr Jung in a positive way. For that reason he was forwarded a copy of the preliminary report pursuant to s 16(4) (c) of the Ombudsman Act.
7.9 The principal points Mr Jung makes are:
(a) His Immigration Scheme was dependent on Vanuatu’s laws being changed to allow for citizenships and passports to be sold; and
(b) With regard to his own position about obtaining citizenship, an ordinary passport and official passport it was not Mr Jung’s fault that laws were broken but the responsibility of Government officials; and
(c) He was not going to make as much money out of the scheme as stated by me in 6.14 above.
I briefly comment on these responses.
(a) Change to Vanuatu’s laws argument
7.10 I do not accept that Mr Jung was proceeding on the basis that the law would be changed to make legal what was otherwise an illegal scheme legal. Mr Jung’s refers to the French version of the Council of Minister’ decision on the matter (refer annexure 16) where the French version refers to permanent residency and the English to passports to support what he says.
7.11 However, the best evidence in my view of Mr Jung’s intentions is the contract that his own company Resort Las Vegas (note it was the exclusive agent) signed with SETC (refer annexure 2). This contract makes no reference to the scheme being conditional on the laws in Vanuatu being changed to allow for sale of citizenships. The contract at the start states that:
This agreement (sic) dully specifies the contractual agreement between the parties, namely (A) and (B). The both are binding each to the commitment of keeping its agreement as below. It will remain until the expire date which is mentioned under clause 19.
I repeat nothing in this agreement, which is clear as to the fact that it is binding and contractual in force, says that it is dependent on Vanuatu’s laws changing.
7.12 The other explanation which Mr Jung omits is that Mr Jung may have preferred there to have been a law change as it would have made his proposal easier but because of the large amount of money at stake Mr Jung was going to proceed regardless of whether the law was changed or not.
(b) Mr Jung’s citizenship, passport - Vanuatu government’s fault
7.13 My view is that one of the reasons that Mr Jung sought to obtain a Vanuatu passport was because he knew he could not travel easily using his Korean passport as he was wanted by the Korean authorities. By getting a passport from Vanuatu Mr Jung may have thought that he could travel without the risk of arrest overseas.
7.14 As noted in the findings and recommendations my opinion is that criminal offences may have been committed by those involved with issue of citizenship and the ordinary passport to Mr Jung. If Mr Jung is charged along with Messrs Kepoue and Bell by the Police he will be able to raise his explanation as a defence and it will be for the Courts to decide whether Mr Jung’s explanation is accepted or not.
(c) Mr Jung’s Immigration scheme not as profitable as stated by the Ombudsman
7.15 Mr Jung is correct. When the expenses he mentioned are taken into account the net profit will be lower than the figure I stated. However, I note that Mr Jung provided no documents to show what he has spent so far despite a written request from the Ombudsman’s Office for such documents recording his expenses. Mr Jung’s explanation was that he had disposed of them along with other documents that had been requested from him.
7.16 Mr Jung also raised some further matters. He correctly noted that a paragraph of the English version of annexure 16 was originally omitted. It has been now included in this report. Mr Jung states that he disagrees with the translation into Korean of annexure 17. I have given him a copy of the original as requested (I note that this document is one that he wrote himself and apparently has not kept a copy of the document). I can only refer to the fact that the translation done for the Ombudsman’s Office was done by a translator in South Korea.
7.17 Secondly, Mr Jung complains about the reference to his criminal record in Korea being referred to in the report. He says that his “right to a fair trial would be seriously prejudiced in respect to charges laid against him by the Office of the Ombudsman.”
7.18 The first point is that the Ombudsman has not laid charges against Mr Jung. Furthermore, the Ombudsman has no ability to charge people with offences which result in a trial before a Court. I understand as a result of a complaint from the Ombudsman’s Office Mr Jung has been charged by the Police and Public Prosecutor as a result of this Office’s complaints.
7.19 I have considered closely this point because what Mr Jung suggests is that one of his constitutional rights may be infringed by my reference to his criminal record in Korea in this report. I do not accept at all that Mr Jung will be prejudiced in any trial he might face before the Courts of Vanuatu. Unlike many countries Vanuatu’s Supreme Courts do not sit with a jury of 12 members of the public. Criminal trials are heard by a judge alone in Vanuatu. I have no doubt and every confidence that the member of the Vanuatu Judiciary that hears any trial of Mr Jung will deal with the case based on the facts and the law relevant to the charges brought against Mr Jung here in Vanuatu and will not be influenced by Mr Jung’s criminal history in Korea.
7.20 In the extraordinary event that a judge did improperly take into account Mr Jung’s criminal history in Korea and convicted him Mr Jung can exercise his right to appeal against the conviction like any other person. I find Mr Jung’s complaint most surprising.
7.21 Finally Mr Jung disputed the accuracy of the contents of annexure 15 which is the Foreign Affairs Ministry’s record of Mr Jung’s meeting with Mr Soksok. I can only observe that a Foreign Affairs Ministry official has made a record at the time of what was said and Mr Jung now some months later without his own record made at the time seeks to say that this written record is not correct. I prefer to rely on the written record made at the time as being more likely to be accurate.
7.22 Mr Soksok sent a letter that concerned another matter in which he included a paragraph making reference to his belief that he was serving his country in dealing with Mr Jung. That may or may not be so. What is apparent from his response is that Mr Soksok, in my opinion, is out of his depth and cannot be entrusted with the ministerial responsibility for Vanuatu’s foreign affairs. Mr Sosksok’s reply is annexed as “C” (with translation).
Messrs Vohor, Kepoue, Bell and the Attorney General’s Chambers
7.23 No replies were received from the above named.
Recommendation 1: Referral of the matter of issue of citizenship and ordinary passport to Mr Jung to the Public Prosecutor and Police Commissioner pursuant to s 25(1) of the Ombudsman Act
8.1 Because it appears that there may well have been criminal offences committed by Messrs Rt. Hon Vohor, Bell and Kepoue in relation to the issue of Mr Jung with a Citizenship Certificate and Vanuatu ordinary passport the Ombudsman’s Office is referring this matter to the Police Commissioner and Public Prosecutor. The Ombudsman is required by s 25(1) of the Ombudsman Act to do this. S 25(1) states:
If the Ombudsman after due enquiry, is of the opinion that the commencement of criminal proceedings or disciplinary action is justified against any person involved in the subject matter of his enquiry, including any enquiry into the conduct of a leader under Chapter 10 (Leadership Code) of the Constitution, he should refer the matter to the Appropriate Authority[3] including all relevant supporting documents.
8.2 It will then be over to the Police to investigate the matter further and for charges to be laid by the Public Prosecutor if he considers this appropriate after consideration of the information in this report and the result of the Police investigations.
Recommendation 2: Mr Jung’s citizenship certificate and ordinary and official passports to be surrendered and formally invalidated by destruction of the same - refer finding A no 3 (6.4), and finding A no 6 (6.9) and finding C no 4 (6.23))
8.3 The above recommendation is self explanatory.
Recommendation 3: The Public Service Commission to within 30 days of the date of this report to convene a disciplinary hearing by the Public Service Disciplinary Board concerning Mr Sese allowing the issue of an official passport to Mr Jung
8.4 Under s 11 of the Public Service Act [Cap 129] it is a disciplinary offence for a public servant who:
is negligent, careless, indolent, inefficient, or incompetent in the discharge of his duties.
8.5 Mr Sese is a public servant and his duties include overall responsibility for the Foreign Affairs Department, including responsibility for the issue of official and diplomatic passports. I consider that he was negligent, careless and incompetent in allowing Mr Jung to be issued with an official passport without first obtaining the letter from the Korean government confirming Mr Jung’s appointment as Vanuatu’s “Trade Commissioner” to Korea. This particular instance is symptomatic of a substandard practice in relation of issue of official and diplomatic passports. This should also form part of the Public Service Disciplinary Board’s hearing.
8.6 The significance of Mr Sese’s inaction is greatly magnified in these circumstances because Mr Jung is a convicted criminal and a fugitive from Korean justice. The only purpose for Mr Jung having the passport was so that he could travel without being caught by International crime authorities such as Interpol. Mr Sese must therefore be called to account. If Mr Sese was to resign and agree not to take employment in the public sector again that may avoid the need for the Public Service Disciplinary Board to be convened to determine the matter. That will be a matter for Mr Sese. Otherwise, I consider that the matter must be determined by way of a disciplinary hearing.
Recommendation 4: Mr Hon Vidal Soksok to resign from Foreign Affairs Portfolio
8.7 In my opinion Mr Soksok has shown himself to be incapable of handling this portfolio by reason of his negligent and incompetent display in respect to Mr Jung and his Immigration Scheme (appointment of Mr Jung as exclusive agent for the People of Vanuatu) and request for an official passport and appointment as a “Trade Commissioner”. The Minister lacked any sense of judgment and may be therefore better suited on taking up another portfolio or returning to being an MP for the balance of the term of this Government.
Recommendation 5: Rt. Hon Serge Vohor to resign as Prime Minister
8.8 Regardless of whether Mr Vohor is ultimately proceeded against or convicted of offences under the Penal Code he has fallen far short of the standard expected leaders as set out in Chapter 10 of the Constitution (Leadership Code). Most regrettably I am of the opinion that the facts disclosed in this report demonstrate that he is lacking in integrity and shows no respect for the lawful procedures set forth in this country’s Constitution and laws. I do believe that he misled the President into signing Mr Jung’s citizenship certificate for the reasons stated above at 5.11 and 5.14.
8.9 The bottom line is that Mr Vohor knew full well that foreign nationals do not qualify to apply for Vanuatu citizenship until they have continuously resided in Vanuatu for 10 years. The Prime Minister can have been under no illusion to the obvious fact that Mr Jung had not been here for 10 years. To have pushed through Mr Jung’s citizenship application and then his appointment as Trade Commissioner, and exclusive agent for an Immigration Scheme - a convicted criminal and fugitive - is scandalous.
8.10 If Mr Vohor does not follow this recommendation it will be a matter for the People of Vanuatu to decide whether or not they return Mr Vohor to Parliament in the next election. The seriousness of this issue should not be underestimated. It involves the core issue of Vanuatu’s national identity.
Recommendation 6: Letters of appointment of Mr Jung as exclusive agent for Immigration Scheme and as Trade Commissioner be formally invalidated
8.11 The above recommendation is self explanatory for obvious reasons.
Recommendation 7: The Minister of Home Affairs appoint a Principal Passport Officer
8.12 As noted above at 4.14-4.16 Vanuatu has for many years not appointed a Principal Passport Officer (“PPO”). It is only the PPO who is legally authorised to issue Vanuatu passports and not the Principal Immigration Officer. This gap must be fixed up immediately and accordingly I recommend that the Minister of Home Affairs appoint a PPO without delay. We were informed that this appointment has been done and is with the Attorney General’s Chambers.
Recommendation 8: The Attorney General’s Chambers put in place a system to make sure all statutory notices are gazetted in a timely fashion (refer 4.10-4.11)
8.13 If statutory notices are not gazetted then they are probably ineffective. This can make matters very difficult. I therefore recommend the Attorney General consider improving the systems in place so that notices do not slip his Office’s attention for the purpose of publishing them in the gazette.
Recommendation 9: Citizenship Committee to keep minutes of its proceedings
8.14 The above is self explanatory.
Recommendation 10: President to consider appointing the new Principal Immigration Officer to the Citizenship Committee
8.15 The Citizenship Committee expressed the importance of having as a member on the Commission the Principal Immigration Officer. This is because he has access to information on expatriate residents needed for their consideration of citizenship applications. Mr Francois Batick former PIO is still a member of the Commission but no longer has access to the necessary records.
8.16 I therefore recommend that the President consider the matter on the advice of the Prime Minister with the view to appointing the new PIO, Mr Garae to the Commission and removing the former PIO, Mr Batick who is also in agreement with this course of action.
Dated this 3rd December 1997.
MARIE-NOËLLE FERRIEUX PATTERSON
OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
LIST OF EXHIBITS (COPIES) ANNEXED TO REPORT
1. Vidal Soksok’s letter 20 June 1997 appointing Resort Las Vegas Group (“Resort”) as exclusive agent for People of Vanuatu for Immigration Scheme.
2. Contract dated 14 July 1997 between Resort and Sydney Economic & Trade Centre Pty Ltd.
3. Mr Jung’s Citizenship Certificate dated 29 April 1997.
4. Mr Jung’s Vanuatu passport (ordinary).
5. Mr Soksok’s appointment dated 8 September 1997 of Mr Jung as Vanuatu’s “Trade Commissioner” to South Korea.
6. Mr Vohor’s letter of 8 September 1997 approving Mr Jung’s appointment as Trade Commissioner.
7. Gazette notice dated 22 September 1997 of President’s appointment of Citizenship Commission.
8. Council of Minister’s criteria for appointment of Honorary Consuls.
9. Mr Jung’s Immigration Scheme submitted to the Solomon Island’s government.
10. Mr Jung’s letter dated 19 March 1997 to Attorney General.
11. Proposed contract between Vanuatu and Resort re Immigration scheme.
12. Mr Jung’s Immigration Scheme submitted to Prime Minister’s Office.
13. Mr Jung’s citizenship application dated 16 April 1997.
14. Mr Jung’s application for an ordinary Vanuatu passport.
15. Foreign Affairs’ Ministry file note of meeting with Mr Jung dated 10 June 1997.
16. Mr Soksok’s memorandum to the Council of Ministers re appointment of Mr Jung/Resort as agent for Immigration Scheme dated 19 June 1997.
17. Translation of Mr Jung/Resort’s fax to Abram Corporation dated 5 June 997 marketing Immigration Scheme.
18. Mr Soksok’s memorandum to the COM dated early September 1997 re appointment of Mr Jung as “Trade Commissioner” to South Korea.
19. Mr Jung’s CV submitted to COM to support his request for appointment as “Trade Commissioner”.
20. Application dated 10 September 1997 submitted by Mr Soksok to Department of Foreign Affairs for Mr Jung to be issued with an Official passport.
21. Letter Foreign Affairs Ministry dated 17 September 1997 to Resort re asset position of Mr Jung.
22. Letter dated 22 September 1997 Resort to Foreign Affairs Ministry asserting Mr Jung worth US$30 million.
23 Letter dated 12 November 1997 Department of Foreign Affairs to the Korean Embassy in Port Moresby, PNG
-------------------------------------------------------
[1] Also to be noted Minister has no power to issue official and diplomatic passports.
[2] The date the Attorney General confirmed the position to the Ombudsman, the Police Commissioner, and Ministers of Home Affairs and
Foreign Affairs and Public Service Department and Commission.
[3] S 1 of the Ombudsman Act defines “appropriate Authority” to mean in the case of an offence against the Public Service Act or regulations, the Department Head. In the case of an offence against the Penal Code, or any law prohibiting acts or omissions or constitution criminal offences, the Commissioner of Police or the Public Prosecutor.
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/vu/other/ombudsman/1997/6.html