Bobroff and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions (194/20) [2021] ZASCA 56; [2021] 3 All SA 1 (SCA); 2021 (2) SACR 53 (SCA) (3 May 2021)

Bobroff and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions (194/20) [2021] ZASCA 56; [2021] 3 All SA 1 (SCA); 2021 (2) SACR 53 (SCA) (3 May 2021)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the High Court had jurisdiction to make a forfeiture order under POCA in respect of property situated abroad, as the statutory definition of 'proceeds of unlawful activities' encompasses property derived or retained outside South Africa. The ICCM Act provides a mechanism for enforcement of such orders in foreign states. On the merits, the Court found that the NDPP established, on a balance of probabilities, that the credit balances in the Israeli accounts were proceeds of theft, fraud, and money laundering committed by the Bobroffs in South Africa. The Bobroffs failed to provide credible explanations for the source and movement of the funds, and the...

Citation
[2021] ZASCA 56
Parties
Appellant: Ronald Bobroff; Appellant: Darren Rodney Bobroff; Respondent: National Director of Public Prosecutions
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 May 2021
Case Number
194/20
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal dismissed except for specified exclusions; forfeiture order amended.
Judges
Ponnan, Mbha, Molemela, Eksteen, Weiner
Legal Topics
Forfeiture of Property, Proceeds of Unlawful Activity, Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, Money Laundering, Contingency Fee Agreements, Effectiveness of Judgments
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Forfeiture of Property Proceeds of Unlawful Activity Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Money Laundering Contingency Fee Agreements Effectiveness of Judgments

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ronald Bobroff

Appellant

Darren Rodney Bobroff

Appellant

National Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to make a forfeiture order in respect of property situated outside South Africa and belonging to persons resident abroad.
  2. 2 Whether the NDPP established that the property forfeited was proceeds of unlawful activities as defined in POCA.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the High Court had jurisdiction to make a forfeiture order under POCA in respect of property situated abroad, as the statutory definition of 'proceeds of unlawful activities' encompasses property derived or retained outside South Africa. The ICCM Act provides a mechanism for enforcement of such orders in foreign states. On the merits, the Court found that the NDPP established, on a balance of probabilities, that the credit balances in the Israeli accounts were proceeds of theft, fraud, and money laundering committed by the Bobroffs in South Africa. The Bobroffs failed to provide credible explanations for the source and movement of the funds, and the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed except for specified exclusions; forfeiture order amended.

Orders

  • The order of the High Court is amended to exclude USD 256,217.84 and AUSD 284,785.32 from forfeiture.
  • Paragraph 3 of the High Court order is set aside and replaced: The balance of the proceeds in the accounts are to be paid into the Criminal Assets Recovery Account established under s 63 of POCA, number 80303056, at the South African Reserve Bank, Vermeulen Street, Pretoria.