Van Der Schyff v S (A94/22) [2023] ZAWCHC 70 (4 April 2023)

Van Der Schyff v S (A94/22) [2023] ZAWCHC 70 (4 April 2023)

The court found that the appellant had demonstrated a consistent disregard for statutory requirements and the authority of state institutions. He continued to provide tax services despite explicit warnings from SARS that he was not authorised to do so, and he misled both his clients and SARS regarding his qualifications and registration status. The appellant was dishonest about his previous conviction for fraud and failed to disclose it as required. Evidence of unauthorised cellphone possession in prison indicated a propensity to commit further offences and interfere with the investigation. The magnitude of the alleged fraud, the actual and potential prejudice to SARS, and the appellant's...

Citation
[2023] ZAWCHC 70
Parties
Appellant: Faried Van Der Schyff; Respondent: The State
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 April 2023
Case Number
A94/22
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; bail remains refused.
Judges
Thulare
Legal Topics
Bail Appeal, Fraud, Money Laundering, Prevention of Organised Crime Act, Value Added Tax Act, Tax Administration Act
Criminal Law Tax Law Civil Procedure Bail Appeal Fraud Money Laundering Prevention of Organised Crime Act Value Added Tax Act +1 more

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Faried Van Der Schyff

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrate erred in refusing bail to the appellant.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's release on bail would endanger the safety of the fiscus or the public.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant would undermine or jeopardise the objectives or proper functioning of the criminal justice system, including the bail system.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant had demonstrated a consistent disregard for statutory requirements and the authority of state institutions. He continued to provide tax services despite explicit warnings from SARS that he was not authorised to do so, and he misled both his clients and SARS regarding his qualifications and registration status. The appellant was dishonest about his previous conviction for fraud and failed to disclose it as required. Evidence of unauthorised cellphone possession in prison indicated a propensity to commit further offences and interfere with the investigation. The magnitude of the alleged fraud, the actual and potential prejudice to SARS, and the appellant's...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; bail remains refused.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.