Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
National Director of Public Prosecutions v Muyambo and Another (2434/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 27 (8 February 2023)
The High Court ordered forfeiture of R1 399 000 seized from the respondents, finding the cash was proceeds of unlawful gold trading and used in an attempted bribe.
National Director of Public Prosecutions v Booysen and Others (6171/2021) [2021] ZAWCHC 121 (17 June 2021)
The High Court confirmed an uncapped POCA restraint order against Jerome Booysen, finding enough evidence of possible conviction and later confiscation.
National Director of Prosecutions v van Rensburg (7523/19) [2021] ZAWCHC 14 (5 February 2021)
High Court POCA confiscation ruling limiting the State to R160,000 in the defendant’s Sea Point Sidewalk CC loan account and making no costs order.
National Director of Public Prosecutions v Selabe (M405/2014) [2018] ZANWHC 24 (7 June 2018)
The court found that the applicant had established on a balance of probabilities that the Range Rover and the house in Majemantsho Village were acquired with proceeds of unlawful activities, specifically money obtained through fraudulent tender schemes. The respondent's answering affidavit was inadequate and failed to rebut the detailed allegations, and mere denials were insufficient. The court rejected the argument that requiring an affidavit at this stage infringed the respondent's fair trial rights, finding no authority to support this contention and noting that POCA-related forfeiture pro…
Source excerpt
National Director of Public Prosecutions v Maziyana and Others (2563/2015) [2015] ZAECGHC 122 (3 November 2015)
The court found the respondents' version to be outrageously improbable, lacking credibility, and constituting uncreditworthy denials. The NDPP's factual allegations were accepted as inherently credible. The payments received by the respondents were not for legitimate purposes but were the proceeds of fraud and money laundering. The jurisdictional requirements for a forfeiture order under POCA were satisfied, and the property in question was found to be both the instrumentality of money laundering and the proceeds of unlawful activities. No purpose would be served by referring the matter to or…
Source excerpt
National Director of Public Prosecutions v Madumela (13842/10) [2012] ZAGPPHC 232 (29 October 2012)
The court found that the applicant proved on a balance of probabilities that the vehicles and cash listed were either instrumentalities used in the commission of drug-related offences or proceeds of such unlawful activities. The respondent failed to provide credible evidence or documentation supporting lawful acquisition or use of the property and did not establish an innocent owner defence. The respondent's blanket denials and failure to respond to detailed affidavits did not create a bona fide factual dispute. The proportionality enquiry favoured forfeiture, as the property was integral to…
Source excerpt
National Director of Public Prosecutions v Gardener and Another (582/09) [2011] ZASCA 25; 2011 (1) SACR 612 (SCA) ; 2011 (4) SA 102 (SCA) (18 March 2011)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that only benefits derived from the fraud counted for confiscation under POCA, and that unrelated repayments or sentence severity were irrelevant.
National Director of Public Prosecutions v Merensky and Others (CIV F 01/10) [2011] ZANWHC 13 (11 March 2011)
Full Bench appeal over discharged POCA preservation orders. The court held the discharge was appealable, condoned late filing, and set the discharge aside.
Afriq Medical Distributors v First National Bank (4883/2002) [2010] ZAGPPHC 123 (21 September 2010)
The court dismissed Afriq Medical Distributors’ claim because the disputed funds were traced to a letter-of-credit transaction tainted by forged documents.
S v Shaik and Others (CCT 86/07) [2008] ZACC 7; 2008 (5) SA 354 (CC) ; 2008 (2) SACR 165 (CC) ; 2008 (8) BCLR 834 (CC) (29 May 2008)
The Constitutional Court held that both the shareholding and dividends received by the appellants were proceeds of crime under the Prevention of Organised Crime Act, as they resulted directly from corrupt payments made to Mr Zuma to influence his conduct for the benefit of Mr Shaik and his companies. The Court found that the intervention of Mr Zuma was causally linked to the acquisition of the shareholding and dividends, and that the appellants did not have enforceable contractual rights to the shareholding absent Mr Zuma's intervention. The Act's definition of proceeds is broad and includes…
Source excerpt
Explore more
