Seizing Criminal Assets to Fight Crime

1. Seizing Criminal Assets to Fight Crime Asset Forfeiture Unit National Prosecuting Authority Report to Parliament May 2007

2. Overall objectives 1: Increase the volume of cases • to build the capacity to do more cases to make a real impact in the fight against crime 2: Developing the law • to do test cases and create legal precedents that allow the effective use of the law

3. 1: Increasing the volume of cases

4. Notes on volume of cases • New seizures • No. of cases: well above target • Value of cases: More than double annual target • Due to King case (est R500m frozen – possibly R1bn) • Completed cases • No. of cases: well above target • Value of cases: About 15% below target • CARA • Slightly below target • Shaik deposit of about R42m only next year

5. Important cases • David King – obtained freezing orders through MLA • in Guernsey, England and Wales • for as much as about R1 billion – one of largest cases ever • He has vowed to drag the case on for next 10 years • Delport – customs fraud of R350m • largest ever number of assets seized in SA – about R80m • Shaik finalised – will pay about R40m

6. CARA first payments • First CARA payouts made this year • Was an important development • Most of funds to fight crime • But also to help organisations that assist victims • DSD – 8 rape crisis and battered woman centres • SAPS – one way glass for ID parades • TRC victims • SOCA – specialised equipment

7. 2: Developing the law

8. Note on judgements • Success rate of more than 85% in all cases • Also measure success rate in cases where judgments are obtained • In 4 years to April 2003 • won only 48% of judgments (25 of 52) • Big change in last 3 years in judgements • 03/04 won 77% of judgements (27 of 35) • 04/05 won 65% of judgements (30 of 46) • 05/06 won 72% of judgements (27.5 of 38) • 06/07 won 81% of judgements (25 of 31) • Since Nov 2004, have won 12 of 15 cases in SCA/CC = 80%

9. Important judgements Constitutional Court • Prophet drug house - appeal refused. Clarify instrumentality forfeitures • Absa vs Fraser – legal expenses cannot be granted to accused at the expense of creditors or victims without hearing them • Mohunram – illegal casino instrumentality • Lost narrowly 6 vs 5 • Majority appear to require organised crime link • Shaik – will argue leave to appeal on 24 May

10. Important judgements Supreme Court of Appeal • Shaik – held that AFU can take gross benefit – not only the profit. Clarify confiscation procedure • Van Staden – drunk driving cars are instrumentalities • Mngomezulu – drug dealer – curator can sell off property to pay expenses of the estate • Van Rensburg –lost on technical point High Court notable cases • Boekhoud/Yield – hearsay admissible when undercover agents still in syndicate • Marinus – compelled to disclose assets to get legal expenses

11. Partners relations • Generally relations are excellent • SAPS (incl SCCU) • about 90% of cases, 30% value • Have SAPS task teams in most AFU offices • DSO – about 8 % of cases, 67% value • SARS – Delport case • NPS – ensure that get more referrals • Working on new organised crime initiative • Others: SARB, FIC, MCM

12. Challenges • Major challenge to expand its capacity sufficiently to deal with all the cases that are currently in court and where asset forfeiture can be done • Estimate is about R1 to R2 billion, • apart from other proceeds that can be targeted through civil forfeiture • Prepared a business case to expand capacity sufficiently to deal with this over 5 years • Requires expanding the budget almost eight -fold • Budget has increased significant additional funding