Pretoria - A Volkswagen Scirocco valued at R538 320 and paid for with the proceeds of crime must be forfeited to the State, the Supreme Court of Appeal ruled this week.
The vehicle was the subject of three court applications, and its ownership came under legal scrutiny after it emerged businessman Timothy Moyana transferred the vehicle into the name of a disabled unemployed man without a driving licence three months after he had bought it.
The Supreme Court concluded this was to disguise the fact he was actually the owner and had bought the vehicle with the proceeds of crime.
The National Director of Public Prosecutions earlier managed to obtain an order from the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria for the forfeiture of the vehicle in terms of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act.
Unhappy with this ruling, Moyane appealed before the high court and won his case. The court found the prosecution could not prove beyond doubt the vehicle was paid for with the proceeds of crime.
The National Prosecuting Authority, in turn, appealed the matter before the Supreme Court, arguing all fingers pointed to the fact the vehicle was bought with the proceeds of crime.
Moyane had been under police investigation for the crimes of gold and diamond smuggling, drug dealing and money laundering.
Moyane earlier paid cash for the vehicle, but made several payments over time, until the full amount was paid. A substantial amount of the purchase price was paid by various third parties who Moyane claimed were his business associates or friends. He then transferred the vehicle into the name of Albert Sithole for free.
Sithole, who cannot drive, relies on a social grant as his income.
According to the police, Moyane had been under police investigation for the crimes of gold and diamond smuggling, drug dealing and money laundering since 2008.
During a search and seizure operation conducted by the police at Moyane’s house, several items were seized, including a cash amount of R120 000 found hidden under his mattress.
Forfeiture proceedings relating to this amount are still pending.
A further search revealed that in March 2010 Moyane acquired this vehicle, for which he paid an amount of R538 320 in cash.
Moyane claimed that apart from his business associates and friends who helped him pay for the vehicle, he also withdrew an amount from his business accounts for this purpose. The police, however, found his bank statements did not reflect the amount he claimed he had withdrawn.
The Supreme Court said it appeared Moyane’s evidence regarding the source of this amount, which was quite substantial, was untruthful and tended to strengthen the case against him.
He further said he obtained a R100 000 loan, which he also added to the cash payment towards the vehicle, but he could not supply the court with details regarding this.
Other amounts paid in cash could also not be accounted for.
In explaining why he had transferred the vehicle into Sithole’s name after three months, Moyane said this was to keep it beyond the reach of his wife in the event of a divorce, and provide the man with some form of an asset he could liquidate as and when he needed money.
Moyane explained Sithole had been seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision in November 2008 and it was out of compassion that he gave him the vehicle.
From the investigations conducted by the police it had emerged there were several cross-border movements of the vehicle by Moyane.
The Supreme Court found Moyane gave an untruthful version regarding its source of payment for the vehicle and rejected his version.
“From the totality of the facts, the inescapable inference is that the funds were derived from unlawful activities and that the vehicle was thus shown to have been the proceeds of crime,” the court said.
Pretoria News