Dead duo wanted to withdraw $US23,000 from their bank account, Fiji court told

The elderly couple, who were among five people found dead in Fiji's highlands in 2019, had sought to withdraw $US23,000 from their bank - just days before they were killed, the court heard.

New Zealand permanent resident Muhammed Raheesh Isoof is facing multiple murder charges in the High Court in Lautoka.

He had worked as a bus driver before moving to live in Fiji at Legalega, Nadi.

It was alleged that between 25-26 August 2019, Isoof killed Nirmal Kumar, 63, his wife Usha Devi, 54, their daughter Nileshni Kajal and her two children Sanah, 11, and Samarah, eight.

Isoof is also charged with the attempted murder of an 11-month-old baby who was found abandoned at the scene.

Isoof, who denies the charges, has been in custody since he was charged with murder and attempted murder on 16 September, 2019.

Attempts by Isoof's defence team to have him bailed were unsuccessful because the court had ruled the alleged offence was a serious one.

In court last Friday, BSP's Namaka branch acting assistant manager, Rajni Mala, said Kumar and Devi wanted to withdraw $US23,000 ($F50,000) from their fixed term deposit account at the Bank of South Pacific (BSP) for pooja (Hindu religious prayer) purposes.

Mala said Kumar and Devi had made an initial request to withdraw the full amount of money in their joint account.

Mala said she told the couple that $US23,000 was too much for pooja and they needed to give a good reason to break their fixed-term deposit.

Mala said after making a phone call, Kumar insisted the bank give him the full amount and he would bring the money back the following Monday after the pooja to reinvest with the bank.

Mala said Kumar was adamant the money be withdrawn after chatting with someone over the phone.

During cross-examination, defence counsel Iqbal Khan asked Mala if a bank customer needed evidence to withdraw money from his account.

She said evidence was needed to protect the bank and the client's funds.

Former BSP employee Vilisi Balemainamaka told the court that she had served Kumar and Devi on 21 August, 2019.

Balemainamaka testified that the couple informed her at the enquiries counter that they owed money to someone, hence the reason they needed to withdraw the full amount.

However, Balemainamaka said she had informed Kumar and Devi that they would need to provide evidence before their request could be considered, as per the bank's criteria.

Balemainamaka then told Justice Thushara Rajasinghe that Kumar made six phone calls to explain the bank's stand in relation to their request.

Balemainamaka said she referred the couple to her superior because after a few phone calls, Kumar said they would transfer their money to another bank and close their BSP account.

In his witness statement, BSP Namaka's acting manager, Reginald Felix, stated that Kumar's request was referred to him as he managed overall branch operations at the time.

Felix said he told the couple the amount they requested did not correspond with their intended purpose.

Felix said he had advised Kumar to reconsider the amount and Kumar asked to withdraw $US9,000.

However, after printing all the documents needed for processing the withdrawal, the couple then informed Felix they would withdraw $US5,000.

The court also heard that on 23 August, three days before their bodies were discovered in the interior of Nausori, Kumar withdrew the $US5,000.

Meanwhile, Justice Thushara Rajasinghe reminded the State of their role as prosecutors in this case.

This came after State counsel Semi Babitu informed the court that the original hand-written statement of one of their witnesses was missing.

Justice Rajasinghe said police could not lose a document just like that and the DPP should lodge a complaint with the Police Commissioner.

The investigating officer has been ordered to look for the original statement.

The State is expected to call 65 witnesses.

The trial continues today with the defence expected to file voire dire grounds today to challenge the admissibility of DNA evidence.