State wants Block’s assets

Former MEC for Finance, Economic Development and Tourism, John Block. Picture: Danie van der Lith

Former MEC for Finance, Economic Development and Tourism, John Block. Picture: Danie van der Lith

Published Jan 26, 2016

Share

Kimberley - The asset Forfeiture Unit has issued the CEO of Trifecta Holdings (Pty) Ltd, Christo Scholtz, with a draft order to confiscate assets to the value of R580 million.

The State has estimated that this is the value of benefits sourced from rental agreements that were concluded in a corrupt manner between Trifecta and government departments in the Northern Cape.

The State also intends seizing the fixed and moveable assets belonging to Scholtz’s co-accused, former ANC provincial chairman John Block, amounting to R2.7 million.

Scholtz and Block appeared in the Northern Cape High Court on Monday for sentencing procedures, after being found guilty of corruption and money laundering in October 2015.

Northern Cape High Court Judge Mmathebe Phatsoane on Monday granted an application made by the National Directorate of Public Prosecutions to conduct an enquiry into determining the value of the assets that were acquired through the proceeds of criminal activity.

Advocate Chris Nzengu, legal representative for the Asset Forfeiture Unit, stated that it was a complex case where “huge” amounts of money were involved.

He indicated that the draft order was calculated on the profits and benefits made through irregular transactions.

“The calculations are based on the figures contained in the judgement (R180 million) and the other based on the Prevention of Organised Crime Act (R400 million),” said Nzengu.

“The defence wants an affidavit regarding the amounts that were set out in the judgement, where the amounts are huge and could not be dealt with between October and now.”

Nzengu explained that the State wanted to deal with the benefits of the accused separately.

“The proceeds of Block and his company, Chisane Investments (Pty) Ltd, amounting to R2.7 million including interest, can be directly linked to the accused.

“Those of Scholtz and the Trifecta group of companies cannot be directly linked as it relates to lease agreements.”

Nzengu added that their representative had indicated to the defence in October that they wished to lodge the restraint order.

“No one was present to exchange statements at the said meeting.”

He requested the matter be postponed to allow the defence teams to file their statements.

“The defence was informed last week about the restraint order and are fully aware of the amounts involved. They had a week to negotiate with the State. This was not done.”

Legal representative for Scholtz, Advocate Jaap Cilliers SC, stated that they were not given sufficient notice of the restraint order by the Asset Forfeiture Unit.

He also disputed the amount claimed by the State.” The Directorate of Public Prosecutions had indicated that Trifecta was only paid R57 million to supply office space.”

Cilliers stated that the accused would be seriously prejudiced should sentencing proceed without the restraint order being finalised first.

“We do not know the basis at which the amount of about R600 million was arrived at. The asset forfeiture application is based on overinflated prices or overinflated sizes of the buildings per square metre,” said Cilliers.

He stated that it would be necessary to postpone sentencing procedures until the exact value of the assets had been determined.”

This will have an impact on the sentence ultimately decided upon by the court.

“The prosecutors must ensure that there are sufficient details regarding the immovable and moveable assets derived from criminal activity. The immovable assets are calculated at market value of the property. The accused are entitled to know how the amount was calculated so that the defence can prepare for mitigation and call witnesses to the stand.”

Cilliers stated that the charges and benefits derived by the accused overlapped, where the monies paid over to Block had a direct bearing on Scholtz.

“Separating the assets of the accused will create difficulties. The merits of the application are exactly the same as are the values for repayment or the confiscation of assets. We need to know if our clients are in a position to repay money as well as have the value of the property that will be confiscated.”

Cilliers indicated that they had foreseen that the State wanted to make an application for a restraint order, where the legal team had requested them in October last year to provide them with documentation in order to prepare for mitigation of sentence.

“They acknowledged receipt of the letter in October. The Directorate of Public Prosecutions only addressed a letter informing our attorneys about the asset forfeiture order last week Wednesday.”

Senior advocate Salie Joubert advised the State to either withdraw its application or pursue a civil trial, as it would subject the accused to an unfair trial.

“There are also costs involved, the State must get its ducks in a row,” said Joubert.

He pointed out that his client, Block, had never delayed any court proceedings, while the trial had been littered with numerous postponements.

“The prosecution’s application to re-open the case, the death of co-accused – the former HOD for Social Development Yolanda Botha, the unavailability of the court to sit, where the matter was postponed for two months then three months, had nothing to do with Block or his company. He is appearing in his personal capacity. You cannot send a company or its representative to jail.”

Joubert added that no papers had been filed for the forfeiture application.

He maintained that no arrangements had been made to file papers in relation to the restraint order following the conviction last year.

Advocate Peter Seruyne, representing the State, argued that the asset forfeiture application should be heard after sentencing, as it would result in further delays in the finalisation of the case. The case was postponed until May 3 to 6.

DFA

Related Topics: