REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NUMBER: 82916/2018
(1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3) REVISED. 27 JULY 2023 DATE SIGNATURE
In the matter between
THE NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS APPLICANT
and
GAVIN PERREIRA DE AGRELA RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT ___________________________________________________________________
TLHAPI J
INTRODUCTION
[1] This application was launched in terms of the Prevention of Organised Crime
Act 121 of 1998 (the Act) and was preceded by an application for the consolidation at
the instance of the respondent of two separate applications Case 82916/2018 and
9949/2019. Case 9949/2019 related to an amount of R648 730 seized during the
arrest of Ms Nielsen. The applications were brought ex parte in terms of section
38(1) read with section 74(1) of the Act for the preservation of the positive balances
in three bank accounts held with First National Bank for two individuals Jimmy Jamail
Hayat (627 735 055 69 and 624 464 442 84) and Gavin Perreira de Agrela, the
respondent herein, (627 731 848 42).
[2] The first preservation order in case number 82916/18 was granted on 19
November 2018 and the second order in case number 9949/ 2019 was granted on
15 February 2019 both subject to section 38(2) of the Act. The applications and
preservation orders were duly served on the respondent in terms of section 39(1). In
terms of section 39(2) he was informed of his right to oppose the application to
declare what was preserved from being forfeited. The forfeiture applications seek an
order that the preserved amount in the respondents FNB account in the amount
R971 756 and that the preserved amount held in a SAPS suspense account in the
amount R648 730 be forfeited to the State further directing payment of these
amounts to the victim the Government of Denmark. The application is opposed.
BACKGROUND
[3] It is believed by the applicant that the property intended to be preserved and
ultimately forfeited were the proceeds of unlawful activities as defined by the Act.
The source being one Ms Anna Britta Troelsgaard Nielsen (Nielsen) mother of three
adults. She became the subject of an investigation by the Danish Authorities together
with one of her children Jimmy Jamail Hayat (Hayat).
[4] She was previously employed by the National Board of Social Services of the
Ministry of Children and Social Affairs of Denmark (National Board of Social
Services). Ms Nielsen fraudulently channelled substantial sums of money from her
employer’s bank accounts to various overseas bank accounts, held by her and
children and in the Republic of South Africa at First National Bank (FNB). Over a
decade an amount of approximately R20 million had been transferred from Denmark
into Nielsens FNB Account.
[5] Nielsen and Hayat were helpful in the investigations conducted by the
Denmark and South African authorities before they were lawfully deported to
Denmark. They deposed to affidavits and Hayat confirmed that the source of the
proceeds in his First National Bank accounts as coming from his mother. Nielsen
admitted to having transferred between R8-10 million from her Danish account to
South Africa. On her arrest about R648 739 was seized from her. The respondent is
implicated for having received an amount of R1 050 000 from Hayat. The respondent
did not deny this because he explained that it was repayment of monies advanced
as a loan.
[6] A financial investigator Coleen Louise Brown traced the flow of funds from the
Danish account of Nielsen to her FNB account and subsequent transfer to Hayat.
(i)The latter’s Maximiser’s account on 30 July 2018 had a balance of R 5 653 315
and an analysis shows that the main source was payment from another Hayat FNB
account 627 526 063 38,
(ii) and all these funds were released from Nielsen’s FNB account 622 079 318 26.
(iii) On 17 September 2018 an amount of R2 892 860.54 was credited to Hayat
from an investment deposit account 716 390 180 95.
(iv) The Maximiser account received direct transfers from an FNB non-resident
current account held by Nielsen 621 249 109 37 where credit transfers were made
R350 000 on 28 September 2018; R350 000 on 29 September 2018; R173 000 on
30 September 2018;
[7] An investigation at SARS and CIPC showed that neither Nielsen or Hayat or
the companies they hold interest in had declared any income in South Africa and it
was opined that their income could not have supported their lifestyle.
[8] On 29 October 2018 the respondent’s FNB account had a balance of
R971 756. Between 23 -27 October 2018 a total sum of R1 050 000 was deposited
into the respondent’s account having been transferred from Hayat’s Maximiser’s
Account as follows:
R350 000 on 23 October 2018
R350 000 on 24 October 2018
R350 000 on 26 October 2018
[9] It is contended that there exists reasonable ground for believing that the
positive balances in the account of Hayat and respondent are proceeds of unlawful
activities namely fraud or theft and or money laundering, the source being transfers
from Nielsen’s Maximiser’s and Hayat’s bank accounts.
[10] It is contended that the accounts of Hayat and the respondent were
considered to be instrumentalities of an offence in schedule 1 of the Act for the
following reasons:
(i) The accounts of Nielsen, Hayat and the respondent received proceeds of
crime;
(ii) The accounts made it possible for the proceeds to be concealed and
disguised;
(iii) The accounts of Nielsen and Hayat were used not only to receive and
effect further transfers of the proceeds of crime;
[11] The respondent is a business man and is married with three children. He
conducts his business t/a B and G Transport (Pty) Ltd from City Deep. He stated that
he was acquainted to a Danish national one Gunther Skarin (Skarin) for six years
before the incident which is the subject of this application. He met Skarin when he
visited his father-in-law as they live in the same area. He had no business ties with
Skarin but they had a cordial relationship as Skarin used to visit his business and
home. A year before the incident he lent Skarin an amount of R20 000.00 which was
paid back.
[12] On 21 October 2018 he was contacted by Skarin who came to see him at his
home. He was informed by Skarin that he had a friend who was looking for cash but
this friend did not want to withdraw money from his own bank account for safety
reasons. According to the respondent he did not inform Skarin that he had an excess
of R1million rand but merely that he was willing to assist Skarin’s friend provided that
the money was first cleared through his (respondent’s) account before cash was paid
out to Skarin.
[13] On 23 October 2018 respondent gave Skarin his bank details and later that
day an amount of R350 000 was deposited into his personal bank account held at
the Glen Shopping Mall and on him confirming with his bank that the funds had been
cleared, he then paid over the money to Skarin on 24 October 2019. On the same
day a second payment of R350 000 was made into his bank account. He once again
went to the bank to confirm that payment was cleared and on 25 October 2018 he
made a second payment to Skarin. He then informed Skarin that he would assist
with one more payment as that was all money he had available to him. On 26
October 2018 a third deposit was made and Skarin collected a third sum of
R350 000.
[14] On 31 October 2018 an investigator who introduced himself as Wimpy
(Willem Jacobus Van der Heever as appears on the preservation order papers) from
Interpol came to see the respondent at his home. He informed Wimpy who wanted to
know more about one Jimmy who was unknown to him. He realised that Wimpy was
investigating the various transactions between him and Skarin. He took Wimpy to
Skarin’s home to verify his version. Unfortunately Skarin was not home but the
respondent sent a message via Whatsapp to Skarin to inform him that Interpol was
investigating the transactions and that these involved a someone who had defrauded
the Danish Government. Skarin’s affidavit and a copy of the whatsapp message is
annexed to this affidavit. The respondent informed Wimpy that he was travelling to
the US on business on the same day and would return to South Africa on 28
November 2018.
[15] The respondent explained that besides his business activities he was an avid
gambler at various casinos and that he used to withdraw cash for that purpose from
his credit card. He kept these funds and winnings in the form of cash. His credit card
statements were availed to show the various withdrawals made between May to
November 2018 which totalled R1 983 000 (one nine eight three rand). He lost some
money, however, when Skarin approached him he had over R1million in cash which
he needed to deposit into his personal account to enable him to purchase foreign
currency for a planned family vacation in December 2018 to Thailand and another
business trip to the US. He was reluctant to carry and deposit that amount of cash
into the bank for safety reason and because of the bank charges which would have
amounted to R30 000.
[16] On 22 November 2018 he purchased $35 000.00 dollars for the 2018
December holiday to Thailand and US trip. During early 2019 he attempted to
transfer R505 224.24 via the internet but the internet banking platform advised that
he had exceeded his daily limit and he attached annexures. He proceeded to the
bank to increase his limit and was informed of the preservation order and a complete
set of the papers were received on 28 November 2018.
[17] With regard to the preservation application the respondent submits:
(i) He denied having met Nielsen or Hayat directly or indirectly and that the
first time Hayat was mentioned was when Wimpy came to see him;
(ii) With regard to Wimpy’s affidavit he denied having informed Wimpy that
Hayat had made payment on behalf of Skarin to settle a loan to Skarin and
the only inference he can draw is that the narration in his account referred
to the deposit as a loan and he had no knowledge why the payee used
that reference. Besides the R20 000 he lent to Skarin he denies further
loans made to him, and he denies that he agreed that the funds paid by
Hayat be held in his account, the funds belonged to him and the holding
thereof has caused severe prejudice;
(iii) He admits that a total of R1050 000 was paid into his personal account but
he denied that he was aware that it was paid by Hayat and that he
admitted that it was for repayment of a loan;
(iv) He has not requested the funds to be returned to him but he does so in
this application;
(v) He bears no knowledge of the source of Hayat’s Fund and he denies
having allowed Hayat to use his bank account;
(vi) He denies that his account is an instrumentality through which a
Schedule1 offence was committed or that his account made it possible for
the nature, source, location of the money to be concealed;
(vii) He was a victim of Nielsen and Hayat in the circumstances that prevailed;
(viii) The version of Wimpy, Brown and Molelle present a false version about
him being a willing participant;
(ix) The respondent questions why no statement was obtained from Skarin
since the applicant had information on him obtained before the order;
THE ISSUES
[18] The issue relates to the forfeiture of the amount standing to the credit of
the respondent’s FNB account and of that amount found in Nielson’s possession on
her arrest. The applicant contends that both amounts must be forfeited, question is
whether the proceeds in respondent’s account are proceeds of unlawful activities.
The respondent contends that the proceeds are as a result of lawful services
rendered.
ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE
[19] The preamble to the Act outlines the purpose for which it was enacted.1 For
purposes of the preservation order the proceeds acquired by theft and or fraud by
Nielsen from her employer, the Government of Denmark qualify as ‘proceeds of
unlawful activities as defined by the Act.
[20] This application deals with forfeiture as provided in Chapter 6 of the Act. Both
counsels agree that the proceedings for forfeiture after a preservation order were
directed mainly at the recovery of the proceeds and/or the instrumentalities of
unlawful activities, that the proceedings were not directed against the individual.2;
This means that the respondent is not the focus, what the focus is about is the
respondent’s opposition to the court declaring that the proceeds in his account and
interest accumulated thereon be forfeited. He opposes this application as he
maintains he acquired the proceeds under innocent circumstances.
[21] In my view the contention by counsel for the respondent that because the
NDPP alleges money laundering, that it has failed to make out case or that the
respondent was complicit in the criminal activities of Nielson is misplaced. While
counsel for the applicant addresses the conduct of the respondent under the heading
of money laundering, I am of the view that those facts mentioned in paragraph 52 of
his heads of argument3 are more appropriate when considering the relationship
between the respondent and Skarin. The issue is whether the defence of innocent
ownership is justified and whether the proceeds deposited into the respondent’ bank
account are the instrumentality of an offence. Lastly in the circumstances of this case
whether proceeds in his account are proceeds of impropriety and whether a
declaration of forfeiture is apposite. Then lastly to consider is the forfeiture on funds
found on the person of Nielson when she was arrested.
[22] Counsel for respondent contended the respondent’s defence was that of an
innocent owner who had come to the assistance of a good friend who was looking
for cash to be paid to a third party, without having to withdraw large amounts over the
counter for safety reasons;4 The authority relied upon is distinguishable. Yes, I will take
judicial notice of the prevalence of crime in South Africa. However, it is not necessary
or relevant in this instance.
[23] Important to determine is whether the proceeds are the instrumentality of an
offence and whether the respondents defence of his innocence entitles him to the
proceeds in his bank account and, in this regard taking into consideration that there
is no dispute that the victim is said to be the Government of Denmark and the prayer
sought is that the proceeds be returned to them.
[24] It is contended that the respondent had no contact with Nielsen and accepted
in good faith Skarini’s version and further that Nielsen was not part of organised crime.
Counsel for the respondent conceded in his heads of argument that Nielsen’s conduct
is criminal and that by “transferring the proceeds of her unlawful activities to the
Republic such transfers were tainted by her criminal conduct and as such liable to
preservation and forfeiture in terms of POCA”. In my view, having made this
concession should also accommodate the understanding that the transfer of proceeds
of crime by Nielson to Hayat in the Republic was also tainted by Nielsen’s criminal
conduct and, therefore the transaction between them should be interpreted to mean
that the proceeds were the instrumentality of an offence since it perpetuated a
commission of a crime against the victim, the government of Denmark.
[24] The report by Ms Brown traces how the proceeds reached the respondent’s
FNB account and this is not disputed. On this basis alone the respondent cannot claim
that he has a right to the proceeds in his account and in my view this should be the
end of the matter where his bank account is concerned. The application relating to the
forfeiture of proceeds in respondent’s bank account must succeed
[25] The respondent submitted that he had no contact with Nielsen and accepted
in good faith Skarini’s version about who required the money; respondent claims his
innocence and no case has been made out that he committed theft or fraud or
money laundering’ no case has been made out that he is complicit to data fraud or
was in any way involved to crimes perpetrated by Nielsen; Nielsen was not part of
organised crime; There can be no doubt whatsoever that the cash found in
possession of Nielsen at the time of her arrest originated from the respondent .
[26] An important consideration is that Nielson has not opposed any of the
applications of preservation or forfeiture and that it is the respondent who applied for
a consolidation of the applications which was granted. It is contended for the
respondent that in the event that the proceeds in his bank account are declared
forfeited, then the amount found on Nielsen should escape such declaration as this
would be disproportionate to the main and purpose of the Act. My understanding is
that the two amounts though not equal involve respondent and that he cannot
be penalised twice. The source of proceeds in the respondent’s FNB account is
Hayat.
[27] Nielson and Hayat undertook to cooperate with the investigation and filed
affidavits which are annexures to the founding affidavit. It is common cause that
R648 730 was seized on the arrest of Nielson. In my view the version given in her
affidavit that she withdrew R 1 050 000 in three equal withdrawals of R350 000 for
her daily expenses and to pay various other people is not the payment made into the
respondent’s bank account. Nielsen’s explanation5 does not tally with the narration of
deposits in the respondent’s bank statement. The only inference I can draw is that
the source of the cash found on Nielsen on her arrest was that which emanated from
the respondent.
[29] Although the respondent’s version on his transactions with Skarin might look
suspicious, there is no evidence that the money seized from Nielson on her arrest is
an instrumentality of an offence in terms of the Act or that it is connected to any
unlawful transfers of monies by Nielson from Denmark. His version remains
uncontroverted and must be accepted. The court cannot rely on speculative
suggestions that the respondent’s conduct amounts to money laundering there must
be proof on a balance of probabilities that the payment of money to Skarin was an
instrumentality of an offence.
[30] Since the respondent is only partially successful, I will direct that it pays costs
in the application.
[31] In the result the following order is granted:
1. It is ordered that the amount of R971 756.00 (nine seven one seven
five six) plus interest accumulated thereon in the respondent’s account
held with First National Bank is forfeited to the State and that it is
directed that the amount forfeited be paid to the Government of
Denmark.
2. It is ordered that the amount of R648 730.00 held in a SAPS suspense
account be paid to the respondent within 30 days of this order.
3. It is ordered that the respondent pay the costs of this application.
_____________________
TLHAPI J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
HEARD AND RESERVED ON: 31 OCTOBER 2022
DELIEVERED ON 27 JULY 2023
Appearances:
For the Plaintiff: Adv P Bezuidenhout (instructed by) State Attorney Pretoria
For the Respondent: Adv HP Van Nieuwenhuizen (instructed by) Farinh, Ducie Christofi Attorneys
1“To introduce measures to combat organised crime, money laundering and criminal gang activities; to prohibit certain activities relating to racketeering activities, to provide for the prohibition of money laundering and for an obligation to report certain information; to criminalise certain activities associated with gangs; to provide for the recovery of the proceeds of unlawful activity; for the civil forfeiture of criminal assets that have been used to commit an offence or assets that are the proceeds of unlawful activity; to provide for the establishment of a criminal assets recovery account:
2NDPP v Mohamed 2002 (4) SA 843 (CC) [16]……Chapter 6 provides for forfeiture of the proceeds and instrumentalities used in crime but is not conviction based; it may be invoked even when there is no prosecution that property has been used to commit and offence or is the proceeds of unlawful activities even when no criminal proceedings are pending”
3 Para 52: “Her is a successful businessman; he has diligent successful business venture and evn travels internationally, he is an avid gambler that vigilantly keeps etc
4 Counsel contended that the Court is entitled to take judicial notice of the fact that robberies of individuals withdrawing substantial amounts of cash from banks in South Africa are rife and a concern in this regard is reasonable and justified
5 Nielson’s affidavit: “recently I withdrew R1 050 000 (R350 000 x3) for day to day expenses. I used some of these funds to pay various persons to assist me in avoiding the Danish press who were trying to locate me for an interview regarding my alleged fraud in Denmark.”