Another weekend behind bars Durban duo accused of running R180m Ponzi scheme racket

BRANDON Naicker, aka Muruvan Egambaram, and Abraham “Jason” Pillay, the two Durban men who allegedly ran a multimillion-rand Ponzi scheme worth an estimated R180 million, will spend at least another weekend behind bars. | Lee Rondganger IOL

BRANDON Naicker, aka Muruvan Egambaram, and Abraham “Jason” Pillay, the two Durban men who allegedly ran a multimillion-rand Ponzi scheme worth an estimated R180 million, will spend at least another weekend behind bars. | Lee Rondganger IOL

Published Nov 30, 2023

Share

Brandon Naicker, aka Muruvan Egambaram, and Abraham “Jason” Pillay, the two Durban men who allegedly ran a multi-million rand Ponzi scheme worth an estimated R180 million will spend at least another weekend behind bars.

This after Magistrate W Robinson told the pair she could only hand down her decision on whether to grant them bail or not next week.

The pair were appearing in the Pinetown Magistrate’s Court on Thursday where they were expected to hear if they would be granted bail for allegedly one investor for R2 million.

Meanwhile, the Hawks are currently investigating 80 other cases against them where investors lost tens of millions of rand.

The Hawks case docket against the pair is swelling and it is estimated that their Ponzi scheme could have ensnared more than 140 investors, with a value of nearly R180 million.

Naicker and Pillay have been in custody since November 1 and have made multiple court appearances for bail in relation to allegedly defrauding an investor of R2m.

They have indicated that they intend to deny the charges.

The court had earlier heard from the State that Naicker and Pillay ran a brokerage firm called Branson Capital.

Senior State prosecutor Joel Kisten told the court that the money paid into the Branson Capital account by investors was used to pay earlier investors, for gambling tokens, properties, forex, and to support the lifestyle of Naicker.

Detective Constable Simphiwe Maphumulo of the Hillcrest police had also told the court that he had uncovered another scam by Naicker in which he tried to get investors to invest in a supposed R35 billion development in Ekurhuleni, Gauteng.

According to Maphumulo, Naicker had been communicating with an investor about investing in the R35bn development up until September, despite being aware as far back as July that he was under investigation.

Maphumulo provided the court with a signed affidavit and WhatsApp communication between Naicker and the potential investor.

Maphumulo told the court that Naicker had told potential investors he needed to raise capital of R250m for the development. He had told investors that he had already raised R290m, and promised investors a 300% return on their investment. The minimum amount to invest was R100 000.

According to Maphumulo, the R350bn development was being run through another of his companies, Brandon Naicker (Pty) Ltd.

Advocate Dhamien Reddy, representing Naicker, made a compelling closing argument for bail, saying his client had no intention of evading trial. He highlighted Naicker's voluntary appearance at the Pinetown Magistrate’s Court where his arrest took place in early November. Reddy challenged the claims made by the investigating officer about Naicker potentially being unlawfully released or fleeing when police visited his Ballito residence. He pointed out that these claims lacked supporting affidavits. Reddy also maintained that his client, if granted bail, would not obstruct the investigation and argued that detaining Naicker solely due to an ongoing investigation was unjust.

Meanwhile, Legal Aid attorney Waseem Hoffese, representing Pillay, made a strong case for bail. He cited Pillay's deep community ties, a 5-year-old child and a wife who depended on him, arguing that Pillay was not a flight risk. Advocate Kisten, arguing for the State, contended that Naicker and Pillay posed significant flight risks.

He suggested their motivation to flee stemmed from recognising the severity and potential mandatory sentences carried by the charges against them. Kisten emphasised the strength of the State's case against the duo, suggesting this formed a compelling reason for them to avoid trial. He highlighted the gravity of the offences and the serious minimum sentences they carry, asserting that this realisation might prompt the applicants to evade trial.

IOL News