|
Title
|
Jurisdiction |
|
Date
|
|
Reported
Whether the trial judge misapplied law, prompting the applicant’s challenge to the respondents’ acquittals.
Criminal procedure — s 319(1) reservation of questions of law; s 174 discharge at close of State case; doctrine of common purpose; documentary evidence and best evidence rule; s 204 witness indemnity; PFMA, fraud and money‑laundering charges; retrial permitted.
|
|
Judgment |
12 June 2025 |
Communications and Media
·
Infrastructure and Transportation
|
|
Act |
8 May 2024 |
|
|
Zambia
|
Judgment |
22 December 2023 |
|
|
|
Research Report |
1 October 2023 |
Business, Trade and Industry
·
Energy and Natural Resources
·
Environment, Climate and Wildlife
·
Finance and Money
|
|
Act |
18 August 2023 |
|
Reported
Court declared seized bulk cash forfeited as proceeds of unlawful activities and rejected the respondent's claim of lawful ownership.
POCA — Civil forfeiture under Chapter 6 — Proceeds of unlawful activities and instrumentality of offence — Locus standi under s 39(3)/(5) — s 52 exclusion (acquired legally and for consideration; knowledge) — Customs and Exchange Control contraventions; bulk cash smuggling; money laundering.
|
Gauteng
|
Judgment |
26 July 2023 |
|
Reported
NDPP authorisations to prosecute for racketeering satisfied the rationality requirement; application dismissed with costs.
Criminal procedure – POCA s 2(4) – NDPP’s written authorisation – principle of legality and rationality review. Racketeering – pattern requires at least two Schedule 1 offences – corruption and money laundering can be distinct predicate offences. Money laundering – concept broad; concealment/disguise of payments may constitute proceeds-of-unlawful-activities. Standard of review – deference to prosecutorial discretion but requirement of rational connection between material and decision.
|
KwaZulu-Natal
|
Judgment |
22 January 2021 |
|
|
United States
|
Judgment |
31 July 2019 |
|
|
United States
|
Judgment |
5 April 2019 |
|
|
India
|
Judgment |
2 February 2018 |
|
|
United States
|
Judgment |
25 September 2017 |
|
|
India
|
Judgment |
9 August 2017 |
|
The accused were convicted of coordinated VAT refund fraud, related forgery/uttering and money‑laundering based on documentary and electronic evidence.
Criminal law – VAT refund fraud using shell entities; documentary and electronic evidence – admissibility and authentication under the ECT Act; Tax Administration Act and state privilege – limits and court discretion; witness legal representation while testifying; common purpose liability; forgery, uttering and money‑laundering (POCA) via intercompany "cheque swops".
|
Gauteng
|
Judgment |
4 August 2017 |
|
|
|
Judgment |
1 June 2017 |
|
|
Zimbabwe
|
Judgment |
3 October 2016 |
|
|
United States
|
Judgment |
12 August 2016 |
|
|
Tanzania
|
Judgment |
11 August 2016 |
|
|
|
Act |
1 June 2016 |
|
Reported
Accomplice evidence corroborated by documents established VAT fraud, forgery and uttering; money laundering and POCA acquisition convictions not proved.
Criminal law – VAT refund fraud – forgery and uttering – admissibility of electronic SARS records (s15(4) ECT Act) – accomplice evidence and corroboration – money laundering (s4 POCA) requires concealment/disguising; mere receipt and spending of proceeds insufficient – s6 POCA acquisition/possession inapplicable where accused is principal.
|
Gauteng
|
Judgment |
27 May 2016 |
|
|
Malawi
|
Judgment |
1 March 2016 |
|
Reported
POCA liability upheld: s2(1)(f) can be satisfied by culpa; s2(1)(e) needs no extra mens rea beyond predicate offences.
Criminal law; organised crime – POCA ss 2(1)(e),(f),(b) – elements and mens rea (dolus or culpa for s2(1)(f); s2(1)(e) requires participation via predicate offences only); money‑laundering (s4); receiving/retaining proceeds (s2(1)(b)); duplication of convictions (single offence where statute criminalises carrying‑on of business/practice); Banks Act, Insolvency Act, Companies/Close Corporations Act and Income Tax Act liabilities feeding into POCA; appellate interference with sentence.
|
|
Judgment |
4 December 2015 |
|
|
United States
|
Judgment |
23 November 2015 |
|
|
Zambia
|
Judgment |
1 June 2015 |
|
|
Malawi
|
Judgment |
16 April 2015 |
|
Reported
Applicant’s pre-existing right to seek a second appeal to the SCA was preserved, but leave to appeal was refused for lack of prospects.
* Criminal appeals – second appeals to the Supreme Court of Appeal – effect of repeal of Supreme Court Act by Superior Courts Act – definition of 'appeal' excludes matters under Criminal Procedure Act. Transitional provisions and Interpretation Act – protection of rights in pending proceedings preserves pre-existing appeal rights. Jurisdiction – SCA has no inherent jurisdiction; leave required and may be refused for lack of prospects of success
|
Western Cape
|
Judgment |
3 April 2014 |
|
Reported
Applicants’ constitutional challenges to POCA’s definitions, evidentiary provision and retrospectivity dismissed; High Court’s severance not confirmed.
Criminal law – Prevention of Organised Crime Act – Definitions: "pattern of racketeering activity" and "enterprise" – vagueness and overbreadth challenge dismissed; Evidence – s 2(2) POCA permits otherwise inadmissible hearsay, similar-fact and previous-conviction evidence subject to proviso preserving fair trial – admissibility assessed case-by-case; Retrospectivity – Chapter 2 not retrospective as conviction requires post-enactment pattern; Fault element – phrase "ought reasonably to have known" denotes negligence standard and is constitutionally valid; Standing and abstract challenges – permissible but carry heavy burden
|
|
Judgment |
20 March 2014 |
|
Conviction for money laundering upheld on circumstantial proof of knowledge; sentence reduced for consistency.
Criminal law – Money laundering (POCA s 4) – Knowledge element may be proven by specific proof of unlawful conduct or by circumstances giving an irresistible inference of criminal provenance – Hearsay inadmissible to prove original crime – Sentencing: principle of consistency required reduction.
|
Western Cape
|
Judgment |
19 December 2013 |
|
Reported
Facial challenge to POCA mostly dismissed; only the phrase “ought reasonably to have known” in certain s 2(1) subsections was severed and invalidated.
Constitutional law – criminal law – Prevention of Organised Crime Act (POCA) – challenge to definitions of “pattern of racketeering activity” and “enterprise” – vagueness and overbreadth – principle of legality. Constitutional law – standing – facial challenge to criminal statute by accused persons charged under the statute. Criminal law – POCA Chapter 2 – retrospectivity/ex post facto challenge – requirement of a predicate act after commencement avoids retrospective criminalisation. Evidence – s 2(2) POCA – admission of hearsay/similar fact/previous convictions subject to judicial fairness discretion – compatible with s 35 constitutional rights. Mens rea – severance of words “ought reasonably to have known” from specified subsections to avoid convicting on negligence rather than intent.
|
KwaZulu-Natal
|
Judgment |
17 May 2013 |
|
Reported
Automatism rejected; subjective foresight found but no reconciliation — murder convictions replaced with culpable homicide; sentence reduced to eight years.
Criminal law — Automatism — onus on State to prove voluntariness; accused must adduce factual/medical foundation. Dolus eventualis — twofold test: subjective foresight and reconciliation; foresight may exist without volitional consent. Traffic deaths — gross negligence (culpable homicide) vs dolus (murder); multiple deaths from single negligent act permit multiple counts. Sentence — seriousness of negligence, abuse of trust and personal circumstances relevant; substitution of convictions requires resentencing.
|
|
Judgment |
22 March 2013 |
|
|
Namibia
|
Judgment |
20 February 2012 |
|
|
Mauritius
|
Judgment |
20 December 2011 |
|
Reported
POCA racketeering, theft and money‑laundering convictions upheld; NDPP authorisation and combined charging of predicate offences held valid.
Criminal law & procedure; POCA s 2(1)(e) (racketeering) and s 4 (money laundering); validity and timing of NDPP s 2(4) authorisation; centralisation certificate s 111; accomplice evidence and corroboration; charging umbrella (POCA) and predicate offences together; splitting of charges/duplication of convictions.
|
|
Judgment |
28 September 2011 |
|
|
United States
|
Judgment |
11 July 2011 |
|
|
United States
|
Judgment |
14 December 2010 |
|
|
United Kingdom
|
Judgment |
27 June 2008 |
|
|
United States
|
Judgment |
24 June 2008 |
|
Reported
Section 205 subpoenas improperly authorised — cellphone records excluded; searches after arrest admissible despite defective warrants.
Criminal procedure – s 205 subpoenas – issuing magistrate’s duty to exercise judicial discretion – subpoenas issued as rubber‑stamp unlawful; resulting records inadmissible. Standing – accused may object to third‑party production of call records where records implicate accused’s privacy/interests. Arrest warrants – territorial jurisdiction – warrants issued outside proper magisterial district technically defective. Searches and seizures – ss 22 & 23 CPA – consent and urgency exceptions; searches admitted under s 22(a). Constitutional exclusion – s 35(5) – evidence unlawfully obtained need not be excluded where defect is technical, no mala fides, evidence is objective real evidence and admission would not render trial unfair.
|
Western Cape
|
Judgment |
11 June 2008 |
|
Reported
Upon proof that benefits flowed from corrupt conduct, POCA permits confiscation of both shares and dividends as proceeds.
POCA (chapter 5) – confiscation of proceeds after conviction – broad definition of "proceeds of unlawful activities" – indirect proceeds and corporate holdings – causal link between corrupt payment and resulting benefit – appellate review of section 18 discretion analogous to sentencing review – "double counting"/double recovery argument rejected
|
|
Judgment |
29 May 2008 |
|
Reported
Non-joinder and alleged prosecutorial misconduct did not render the trial unfair; POCA confiscation appeal granted leave.
Criminal procedure – fair trial – non-joinder of suspected co-perpetrators does not, without prejudice, render trial unfair; Prosecutorial conduct – NPA Act contemplates investigative-prosecutorial overlap; Late evidence – Rules 30/31 and s22 Supreme Court Act require exceptional, incontrovertible evidence; Sentencing – minimum sentence legislation applies to ongoing offences committed before and after commencement; POCA – confiscation orders raise constitutional property and proportionality issues, leave to appeal granted
|
|
Judgment |
2 October 2007 |
|
Reported
Payments and accounting manipulations to influence a public official constituted corruption, fraud and POCA offences; hearsay fax admissible; convictions and sentences upheld.
Corruption Act s 1(1)(a)(i)/(ii) – 'duty' includes constitutional and other duties, not confined to 'function'. Admissibility of hearsay – encrypted corporate fax admissible under s 3 of Law of Evidence Amendment Act where probative value high and prejudice limited. Fraud – irregular accounting write‑offs can constitute fraud where misrepresentations are knowingly made and communicated to accounting staff. POCA – service agreements and transfers can constitute dealing with proceeds of unlawful activity. Sentencing – prescribed minimum sentences apply; absence of substantial and compelling reasons justifies minimums.
|
|
Judgment |
6 November 2006 |
|
Reported
Forfeiture upheld: property was an instrumentality of drug manufacture and forfeiture was not an arbitrary deprivation.
• Asset forfeiture – POCA Chapter 6 – civil forfeiture of property used for drug manufacture – instrumentality test – property must play a reasonably direct, functional role in the commission of the offence. • Property rights – section 25(1) – arbitrariness and proportionality – application of FNB factors; forfeiture must not be disproportionate to public purpose. • Evidence – late adduction on appeal – rule 31 and section 22 standards – condonation may be granted but admissibility requires stringent criteria. • Procedural – constitutional challenges must be properly pleaded and pursued in earlier courts and necessary parties joined before direct access sought
|
|
Judgment |
29 September 2006 |
|
Reported
Whether property is forfeitable depends on a reasonably direct, functional link to the commission or the proceeds of unlawful activity.
Interpretation of Prevention of Organised Crime Act ch 6 – 'instrumentality of an offence' requires a reasonably direct, functional link to the commission of a scheduled offence; mere location insufficient. Owner's culpability is not relevant at first-stage inquiry; it is considered at second-stage exclusion under s 52. 'Proceeds of unlawful activities' broadly defined but requires that benefits be derived 'in connection with or as a result of' unlawful activity. Application to facts: venues where crimes occurred (house, hotel) are not automatically instrumentalities; investments/interest not proceeds where unlawful act was false representation.
|
|
Judgment |
13 May 2004 |
|
Reported
Preparatory investigations under the NPA Act require suspicion of a specified offence; overbroad warrants violating privacy are void.
Constitutional principle of legality; NPA Act s 28(13)/s 29(5) — preparatory investigations require suspicion of an offence capable of being a ‘specified offence’; designations under s 28(2) invalid if based on overbroad inquiry; ex parte warrant applications demand full, adequate and objective disclosure; search warrants must be specific and not authorize general ransacking; vagueness/overbreadth of warrants invalidates seizures.
|
|
Judgment |
1 April 2004 |
|
Reported
Property used as a clandestine drug laboratory can be forfeited civilly where it is an instrumentality on a balance of probabilities.
Civil forfeiture – Prevention of Organised Crime Act (POCA) s48 and s50 – civil proceedings to forfeit instrumentalities and proceeds of crime. Stay of civil forfeiture pending criminal proceedings – not granted absent legal compulsion to self-incriminate; accused’s choice to respond relevant. Expert forensic evidence in civil forfeiture proceedings – admissible under civil standards; unchallenged forensic analysis accepted. Instrumentality test – nexus/proximity between property and offence; balance of probabilities suffices. Relief – order forfeiting property to State; vesting and sale by curator bonis; proceeds to Criminal Recovery Account subject to bondholder’s claim; costs awarded to applicant.
|
Western Cape
|
Judgment |
22 May 2003 |
|
Reported
Section 38 allows ex parte preservation applications but does not exclude rule nisi or interim orders; audi rights preserved.
* Prevention of Organised Crime Act, Chapter 6 — preservation of property orders (s38) — ex parte applications — rule nisi and interim preservation/seizure orders — audi alteram partem — section 34 fair hearing right — constitutional construction and reading-down — inherent judicial powers (s173) — justification under s36
|
|
Judgment |
3 April 2003 |
|
|
United States
|
Judgment |
29 January 2003 |
|
Reported
Whether a single eyewitness identification, despite parade irregularities and the accused's silence, proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Corruption offence — identity of alleged extorting policeman — eyewitness identification; identification parade irregularities; parade form not proved; corroboration by name tag. Single‑witness identification — assessed holistically against parade defects. Accused’s failure to testify — uncontradicted prima facie case strengthens prosecution.
|
|
Judgment |
26 September 2002 |
|
|
United States
|
Judgment |
27 May 1999 |
|
|
United States
|
Judgment |
1 June 1998 |
|
Reported
Reverse onus rules in sections 245 and 332(5) breach the constitutional presumption of innocence and are invalid.
Criminal procedure – reverse onus presumptions – sections 245 and 332(5) Criminal Procedure Act – presumption of innocence (s25(3)(c)) – limitation analysis under s33(1) – vicarious/criminal liability of company directors – severance and reading-down – interplay with s90 (exceptions/exemptions) of Act – retrospective effect to pending appeals/reviews
|
|
Judgment |
6 March 1997 |