Essop v S (AR 931/2004) [2014] ZAKZPHC 45 (23 May 2014)
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Case number
AR 931/2004
Judges
Steyn, Marks
Appeal against a fraud conviction succeeded because the charge sheet omitted prejudice, an essential element of fraud, and amendment on appeal was refused.
Nieuwenhuizen v S (A40/10) [2011] ZAFSHC 8 (27 January 2011)
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Case number
A40/10
Judges
Rampai, Ebrahim
The court held that the appellant's actions in sending falsified internet payment slips, even in respect of pre-existing debts, constituted fraud because his intention was to deceive and induce the complainants or their agents to act to their prejudice, whether actual or potential. The law does not insulate a dishonest person from prosecution merely because the deception relates to a pre-existing debt. The charge sheet and questioning in terms of section 112(1)(c) were found to be sufficient in alleging and establishing the element of prejudice. Regarding sentence, the court found that the tr…