[ad_1]
Johannesburg – The National Prosecution Authority (NPA) was prevented from freezing assets valued at R1.1 billion from the Gupta-linked regimental capital at the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg on Monday.
The head of the NPA’s investigation directorate, defender Hermione Cronje, said the repercussions of the sentence are significant.
“Not only will the restricted assets be returned to the defendants, but it will also set a very high bar for disclosure in future restriction requests,” Cronje said.
In November 2019, a provisional restraining order was granted against the Regiment companies, their directors, Mr. Pillay and Mr. Nyhonyha, and their former director, Dr. Wood, and their respective family trusts and other entities. who had assets in their name valued at R1. One billion.
“It is alleged that during their tenure in the Regiment companies they committed the crimes of corruption, fraud and money laundering in relation to Transnet,” read court documents.
The State also alleges that Regiments Capital illegally received contracts from Transnet, either directly or indirectly, as a subcontractor to McKinsey.
The NDPP claimed that the crimes were part of the state capture project aimed at enriching the defendants, the Gupta family and their associates.
Regiment Capital denied the allegations and claimed there were no wrongdoing on their part. The company also argued that there was no basis for the NPA to obtain a confiscation order against it.
” The basis for the Gauteng High Court decision is that when the national director of the Public Ministry, Shamila Batohi, requested the restraining order, the declarant, lawyer Hermione Cronje, should have brought two documents to the attention of the court: an order adopted by mutual agreement. in the same split on September 26, 2019 between various Regiment companies, their directors and Dr. Wood as to how the assets of Regiments and its subsidiaries should be treated; and a settlement agreement between Transnet SOC Ltd and Regiments, ”the NPA said.
With respect to both documents, the NDPP had argued that they were not relevant to the question of whether a restraining order should be granted, that is, whether crimes may have been committed from which the defendants obtained a benefit and whether an equivalent amount of its realizable assets should be restricted.
” The September order did not prevent the defendants from dissipating their realizable assets, provided that they worked as a consort; and the defendants had not paid Transnet the settlement amount.
Regarding the Transnet settlement, Attorney Cronje also explained that she only learned of the settlement agreement after the founding documents were signed, and brought the settlement agreement to the attention of the court once she found out.
“However, the court held that these documents were important and should have been disclosed.”
Commenting on the impact of the ruling for disclosure on future restraining requests, Cronje said: ” When initiating requests for interim restraining orders, the NDPP declarant is forced to make a call about which documents are material and they must appear in court.
” In the present case, the founding articles already exceeded 1,400 pages. When the materiality web is projected too far, there is a real danger of overwhelming the duty judge, who only has days to consider the request. ”
The NDPP is considering whether to appeal today’s ruling.
MESS
[ad_2]