Schell v Rall (A545/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1177 (26 October 2017)

Schell v Rall (A545/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1177 (26 October 2017)

The court found that the essential elements of fraud, particularly prejudice, were not proved against the appellants for several counts. The evidence did not establish that the complainants suffered actual or potential harm due to the alleged misrepresentation of directorship. Regarding theft, the court held that the intention to permanently deprive the consortium of its money was not established beyond reasonable doubt, especially given the acquittal on the related cheque count. The VAT fraud convictions were corrected to reflect the proper attribution to each appellant, based on their respective roles in submitting invoices. The court further held that the sentences imposed were...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 1177
Parties
Appellant: Wayne Edward Schell; Appellant: Wilma Schon Rall; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 October 2017
Case Number
A545/2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld in respect of most convictions and sentences; convictions and sentences set aside except for corrected VAT fraud counts.
Judges
D S Molefe, C Collis
Legal Topics
Fraud, Theft, Vat Fraud, Intention to Steal, Misrepresentation, Sentencing Principles
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Fraud Theft Vat Fraud Intention to Steal Misrepresentation Sentencing Principles

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wayne Edward Schell

Appellant

Wilma Schon Rall

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants were correctly convicted of fraud and theft.
  2. 2 Whether the essential elements of fraud, including prejudice, were proved.
  3. 3 Whether the appellants had the intention to permanently deprive the consortium of its money.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the essential elements of fraud, particularly prejudice, were not proved against the appellants for several counts. The evidence did not establish that the complainants suffered actual or potential harm due to the alleged misrepresentation of directorship. Regarding theft, the court held that the intention to permanently deprive the consortium of its money was not established beyond reasonable doubt, especially given the acquittal on the related cheque count. The VAT fraud convictions were corrected to reflect the proper attribution to each appellant, based on their respective roles in submitting invoices. The court further held that the sentences imposed were...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld in respect of most convictions and sentences; convictions and sentences set aside except for corrected VAT fraud counts.

Orders

  • The appeal on conviction of the first appellant in respect of counts 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 9 is upheld and the first appellant is convicted of count 8.
  • The appeal on conviction of the second appellant in respect of counts 1, 2, 7, 8 and 9 is upheld and the second appellant is convicted on count 6.