Publication: The Natal Witness
Issued:
Date: 2006-01-20
Reporter: Nivashni Nair
Reporter:
| Publication |
The Natal Witness
|
| Date |
2006-01-20 |
|
Reporter
|
Nivashni Nair |
|
Web Link
|
www.witness.co.za
|
Judgment
reserved in state application to seize Shaik’s assets
Judge Hilary
Squires yesterday reserved judgment in the state’s application to confiscate
R34,5 million worth of assets belonging to convicted fraudster Schabir Shaik.
Squires told legal teams he would need time to consider the arguments
submitted to the Durban High Court.
Earlier, the defence emphasised that
the asset forfeiture process is not designed to enrich the state.
Nirmal
Singh asked the court to use its discretion when reviewing the state’s
application to confiscate Shaik’s 20% shareholding in African Defence Systems
valued at R21 million, as not only were the shares acquired before Shaik began
his “generally corrupt relationship” with axed deputy president Jacob Zuma but
the holding also had nothing to do with criminal activities.
He said
that since Squires found last year that Zuma’s intervention regarding the
partnership between French arms company Thomson-CSF and Shaik’s Nkobi group was
not unlawful, it was clear the shareholding was not a benefit or proceeds of
crime.
Singh said the state cannot revisit issues it failed to prove in
the criminal trial.
However, in his closing argument, Wim Trengove SC,
for the state, said the court is not confined to the evidence submitted in the
criminal case and may gather further evidence.
He added that while the
shares were bought before Shaik’s first corrupt payment to Zuma, it was only
through “playing the Zuma card” *1 with the French
that the partnership strengthened and saw success.
With regard to the
R250 000 (part of the R500 000 annual bribe Shaik solicited from Thomsons to
Zuma), Singh said that although the amount can be assumed a benefit and proceeds
of crime, it would be inappropriate to grant the confiscation order as the court
found Shaik did not keep the money for himself but passed it on to Zuma.
“The purpose of the act is not to impose an additional punishment on the
individual but to strip the individual of the benefit. It is not designed to
strip the individual of something that he does not have,” Singh said.
The state argues that a confiscation order is appropriate even though
Shaik may not still have the benefit.
With regards to the amount of
R34,5 million, the defence argues that the state is “double-counting”.
Singh argued that it is inappropriate for the state to ask for the ADS
shares as well as the dividends. The state has asked the court to grant an order
to confiscate Shaik’s ADS shares, and R12,8 million in dividends, the R500 000
which Nkobi Investments received for the sale of its shares in Thomson Holdings
to Thomson International, and the R250 000 bribe money. Shortly after the
conviction last year, the state froze R28,8 million of Shaik’s assets.
With acknowledgements to Nivashni Nair and The Natal Witness.
*1 At the time we called it "top
cover".