Minnies and Others v S (881/2011) [2012] ZASCA 102; 2012 (2) SACR 386 (SCA) (1 June 2012)

Minnies and Others v S (881/2011) [2012] ZASCA 102; 2012 (2) SACR 386 (SCA) (1 June 2012)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that 'tendering' under s 34(1)(b) of the South African Reserve Bank Act requires an offer of counterfeit money as genuine legal tender. In this case, all parties involved knew the banknotes were counterfeit and there was no attempt to pass them off as genuine. Therefore, the appellants' conduct did not amount to unlawful tendering as envisaged by the statute. The court found that the lower courts erred in their interpretation and application of the law, and the precedent in S v Modisakeng was wrongly decided. The convictions and sentences were set aside.

Citation
[2012] ZASCA 102
Parties
Appellant: Mark Minnies; Appellant: Iekeraam Hini; Appellant: Mark Adams; Appellant: Linford Pilot; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 June 2012
Case Number
881/2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences set aside.
Judges
Mthiyane, Leach, Tshiqi, Petse, Ndita
Legal Topics
Counterfeit Currency, Statutory Interpretation, Tendering Vs Uttering, Criminal Intent
Criminal Law Counterfeit Currency Statutory Interpretation Tendering Vs Uttering Criminal Intent

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Minnies

Appellant

Iekeraam Hini

Appellant

Mark Adams

Appellant

Linford Pilot

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether offering counterfeit banknotes for sale to a buyer who knows they are counterfeit constitutes 'tendering' under s 34(1)(b) of the South African Reserve Bank Act 90 of 1989.
  2. 2 Whether the appellants' actions amounted to an unlawful tendering of counterfeit money.
  3. 3 Whether the trial and appeal courts erred in their interpretation of 'tender' and 'utter' in the context of the statute.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that 'tendering' under s 34(1)(b) of the South African Reserve Bank Act requires an offer of counterfeit money as genuine legal tender. In this case, all parties involved knew the banknotes were counterfeit and there was no attempt to pass them off as genuine. Therefore, the appellants' conduct did not amount to unlawful tendering as envisaged by the statute. The court found that the lower courts erred in their interpretation and application of the law, and the precedent in S v Modisakeng was wrongly decided. The convictions and sentences were set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The convictions and the sentences of the appellants are set aside.