Case against former KZN top cop and co-accused in 2010 World Cup fraud racket set for pre-trial conference

Businessman Thoshan Panday, former police colonel Navin Madhoe, former policeman Ashwin Narainpershad and former KZN provincial commissioner Mmamonye Ngobeni are due back in court in July for pre-trial conference. Picture: Supplied.

Businessman Thoshan Panday, former police colonel Navin Madhoe, former policeman Ashwin Narainpershad and former KZN provincial commissioner Mmamonye Ngobeni are due back in court in July for pre-trial conference. Picture: Supplied.

Published Apr 16, 2024

Share

The case against a former KwaZulu-Natal high ranking police officer and others accused of orchestrating a multi-million rand fraud and racket during the 2010 World Cup, has been set for pretrial in three months time.

The accused are former provincial police commissioner General Mmamonnye Ngobeni; Colonel Navin Madhoe; former police captain Aswin Narainpershad; and businessman, Thoshan Panday.

They face 275 counts of racketeering offences and fraud, corruption, money laundering and forgery allegedly committed between March 2009 and April 2010.

Panday’s mother, Arevenda Panday; his wife, Privisha Panday; his sister Kajal Ishwarkumar; brother-in-law, Seveesh Maharaj Ishwarkumar; and personal assistant, Tasleem Rahiman, also face charges in the matter.

Thoshan Panday

According to the Independent Directorate, Panday’s relatives allegedly acted with common purpose to defraud the South African Police Service (SAPS).

The ID said the five entities related and/or controlled by Panday were paid the total of R47,346,597.52 by SAPS (and it includes, Goldcoast R39,336,283, Valotone R3,515,704, Bravosat R2,079,469, Kaseev Traders R1,552,019 and Unite Mzansi R863,122).

“The policemen who are accused in this matter face accusations of colluding with Panday to receive contracts from the KZN police for an amount of over R47.3 million in fraudulent and irregular tender procedures,” said ID spokesperson, Harry Mamothame.

He added that judgment on an application for disclosure of certain information is still reserved for a date that will be provided by the court - the State has strongly argued against the application.

IOL News