Publication: The Times Issued: Date: 2008-02-27 Reporter: Tamlyn Stewart

Shaik Pleads for a Refund

 

Publication 

The Times

Date

2008-02-27

Reporter Tamlyn Stewart

Web Link

www.thetimes.co.za

 


SERIOUS BUSINESS: Mo Shaik appears on behalf of his family during the Constitutional Court appeal of his brother, Schabir, for a reduction in the amount of money seized after Schabir’s conviction for fraud and corruption in 2005 Picture: HALDEN KROG


‘The bribe got Schabir Shaik the benefit’

Fraudster’s business ‘has lost millions and will go belly-up’

The empire of fraudster Schabir Shaik faces ruin should the Constitutional Court reject his application to have millions of his ill- gotten gains returned.

Mo Shaik, Schabir’s brother, said that if they did not receive relief from the court they would have to restructure their holdings.

He said Schabir’s Nkobi Holdings group of companies had lost millions and probably would not survive without the return of R30-million to R40-million in cash and assets confiscated by the state .

Shaik’s lawyers argued yesterday that the court should reduce the value of assets confiscated after he was convicted of corruption and fraud in June 2005.

Shaik was the former financial adviser to ANC president Jacob Zuma and his conviction was directly related to his relationship with Zuma. Shaik is serving a 15-year jail sentence.

His counsel, Martin Brassey, argued yesterday that when Zuma intervened in an arms deal on Shaik’s behalf — by reassuring French arms company Thomson CSF of Shaik’s credentials — it was an act of friendship and not prompted by a bribe from Shaik.

But counsel for the state Wim Treng ove responded : “It would have been odd for Mr Shaik to pay so dearly for that which he could have had for nothing. As a matter of historical fact, the bribe got him the benefit.”

Shaik was found guilty of making 238 payments, totalling more than R1.2-million, to the benefit of Zuma between October 1995 and September 2002.

Mo Shaik said he believed the appeal had a “reasonable prospect of success”.

The court reserved judgment.

With acknowledgements to Tamlyn Stewart and The Times.