Sikol went on to become a director of the Vanuatu-based European Bank, and a chairman of the Vanuatu Finance Centre.[2][5]
IDM Direct Marketing
In May 2002, Sikol was indicted by a Memphis grand jury on charges of racketeering, conspiracy, money laundering, and mail fraud for his role in IDM, a company which sold non-U.S. lottery tickets to elderly U.S. citizens, and was arrested in December that year.[6] Sikol's colleague Tom Bayer, also a naturalised citizen of Vanuatu, was initially confident that the charges would be thrown out, stating in January 2003 that the charge of money laundering was being applied to actions that were nothing more than "normal banking business". The National Right Wing Movement of Vanuatu was unconvinced, and urged the government to hand Bayer over to the United States government as well.[7][8][9]
Sikol emerged victorious in the elections in November the following year: with a voter turnout of 3,118 (77%) in the Epi constituency, he garnered 634 votes, the highest out of all candidates in the constituency, and was thus elected along with Isaac Hamariliu.[11] His election provoked some backlash from political opponents. In December 2012, Morking Steven Iatika of Tanna Constituency proposed a constitutional amendment to bar non-indigenous citizens from election, stating that "the people of Vanuatu in the rural constituencies are not safe from people with money who can brainwash voters and rob the honesty of a ni-Vanuatu".[12]
In February 2013, Sikol faced an election petition regarding whether he was eligible to be elected under Section 23A of the Representation of the Peoples Act, and in response filed a constitutional case.[13] In April 2013, Chief Justice Vincent Lunabek of the Supreme Court of Vanuatu affirmed the validity of Sikol's election, ruling that regardless of whether Sikol's adoption qualified him as "a native or a person originating from that rural constituency ... who has been adopted by law or custom into a family originating from that rural constituency" as required by Section 23A, that section itself violated the guarantee in Article 5(1) of the Constitution of Vanuatu against discrimination, and did not fall within the exceptions to that article for "legitimate public interest".[14][15]