Even if the markets didn't react, the overwhelmingly guilty verdict in the Schabir Shaik trial made it quite a week for South Africa.

I'm no political commentator, but the ferocity with which the justice system took on corruption was heartening.

The next step will be to see what other outcomes this trial has because, as one foreign currency expert said last week, the markets would want to see that the issues surrounding deputy president Jacob Zuma were not swept under the ANC's proverbial carpet.

Another factor that could turn sentiment against South Africa is the "Oilgate" scandal. Hats off to the Mail & Guardian for its gargantuan efforts to bring this story to the public's eye.

Not being an in-the-know about any of the deeper facts of this story, I can say that the link to PetroSA is worrying - it has long been a company with rumours buzzing around it like flies. That the press was gagged at all in this instance is ominous. The misuse of public funds cannot be in the public interest.

Nonetheless, corruption is in the spotlight. And that's important for our markets because corruption, or the fear of it, lowers confidence and keeps foreign money away.

AngloGold Ashanti's corrupt practices in the Democratic Republic of the Congo are damaging enough and you've got to hope that one of the authorities will take this case further.

Which authority isn't clear yet.

The company is 50.9 percent owned by Anglo American, which is primarily listed in London - therefore the parent company and its subsidiaries are expected to abide by UK rules and Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) rules.

AngloGold also has a US listing where Securities and Exchange Commission rules kick in.

Of course, both companies are also listed in South Africa where there's a Corruption Act, but unlike the US, we don't have an act that specifically deals with local companies engaging in corrupt practices outside our borders.

Whoever it is that should be looking into this case will face a legal quagmire. But, one question I'd really like answered is how exactly the money being paid to the militia was expensed? Was it allocated to a budget for "sundries", "petty cash", "security", "extortion" or "general bribes"?

Sure, AngloGold may have taken up operations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo after the deal with Ashanti; it may have been nobly trying to help the republic; it may have been forced at gunpoint to hand over the cash, but extenuating circumstances don't always count.

This company had operations in an area where human rights abuses abounded and it paid money to bandits for "protection". There was corruption and from local laws to the US's Sarbanes Oxley Act, to the OECD, to the UK, AngloGold could be investigated and directors held liable.

If this were to be the case, I think it would send a vital message to all our companies that are happily expanding into Africa and happily espousing the principles of good corporate citizenship. It would say that it's not enough just to say these things, you've got to be actively doing them and there are people out there who will catch you if you're not. And if there's such a thing as conflict diamonds, it's time we all understood that conflict gold exists.

Look, if the business of business is business, then companies will do whatever they can to make a buck. Laws, documents like King 2 and initiatives like the social responsibility index (SRI) try to keep corporate greed in check.

There's a natural see-sawing of the balance, but when a company like AngloGold - which tells shareholders of its great standards of governance and which sits on the SRI - errs, then it's time for the watchdogs to bear their teeth and restore the balance.

With acknowledgements to Renee Bonorchis and the Business Report.