About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
>>
2019
>>
[2019] ZAFSHC 243
|
|
S v Delport and Others (80/2017) [2019] ZAFSHC 243; 2020 (2) SACR 179 (FB) (10 December 2019)
SAFLII
Note:
Certain
personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been
redacted from this document in compliance with the law
and
SAFLII
Policy
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
FREE
STATE
DIVISION,
BLOEMFONTEIN
CASE
NO: 80/2017
In
the matter of:
THE
STATE
v
NORMAN
FREDERICK DELPORT
ACCUSED 1
JOHANNA
CATHERINA
DELPORT
ACCUSED 2
MARIUS
DELPORT
ACCUSED 3
TWO
SHIPS TRADING 373 (PTY)
LTD
ACCUSED 4
MN
CHEMICALS DISTRIBUTORS CLOSE CORPORATION
ACCUSED 5
HEARD ON:
3, 4, 12, 21 JUNE 2019, 2, 15, 24 JULY 2019
7, 8 OCTOBER
2019, 2, 3, 9 DECEMBER 2019.
CORAM:
MURRAY AJ
SENTENCE ON:
10 December 2019
[1]
Mr Norman Frederick Delport (Accused 1) a 68-year old male, formerly
of [...] Street, Woodland Hills, Bloemfontein, and Mr Marius
Delport
(Accused 3) a 39 year old male, formerly of [...] Street, Woodland
Hills, Bloemfontein, were charged with 136 counts of
FRAUD, of which
charges 33 – 136 are to be read with Section 51(2)(a) and Part
II of Schedule 2 of Act 105 of 1997.
They were charged in the
alternative
with 74 counts of contravention of the provisions
of Section 59(1)(d) of the Value Added Tax Act 89 of 1991 and 62
counts of Contravention
of the provisions of
Section 235(1)(e)
of the
Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011
.
[2]
Both men were also charged with 125 counts of Money Laundering by
contravening the provisions the provisions of
Section 4(b)(i)
, read
with the provisions of Sections 1 and 8 of the Prevention of
Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998 (“POCA”).
[3]
They both submitted written s 112(2) statements, which the State
accepted. All money laundering charges against both of
them
were withdrawn when Mr Marius Delport in his s 112(2) statement
pleaded guilty on the 136 Fraud charges and his father, Mr
Norman
Delport in his s 112(2) pleaded guilty on the 136 Alternative charges
of contravening the VAT Act and the Administration
Act.
[4]
On 3 June 2019 they were convicted in accordance with their section
112(2) statements. Mr Norman Delport was therefore convicted
of 136
charges of the contravention of section 59(1)(d) of the VAT Act 89 of
1991 and section 235(1)(e) of the Administration Act
28 of 2011, and
Mr Marius Delport of 136 counts of Fraud of which 104 fall under
section 52(2)
of the
Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997
.
[5]
No previous convictions were proved against Mr Norman Delport and one
conviction of a traffic speeding offence was proved against
Mr Marius
Delport.
[6]
The State asked Mr J Higgs, the SARS officer who coordinated the
investigation into the Delport Family Trust, the Eden Rock
Trust, Two
Ships Trading Pty Ltd and W N Chemicals Production CC, to testify in
aggravation of the sentences being contemplated
for the Delports.
The purpose of his evidence was “not to ascertain the
mathematically precise quantum of the actual
loss or potential losses
suffered by SARS, but primarily to assist the trial Court to have a
proper perspective of the magnitude
of the moral blameworthiness of
the deceptive criminal enterprise” in which the Delports were
embroiled. He aimed to demonstrate
the
modus operandi
with
which SARS had been defrauded of an amount of R60 389 151.95.
[5]
He explained that the fraud was committed from 2009 until 2015.
It went on over a period of 6½ years, with
the first of the
fraudulent claims submitted in 2009 and the last in 2015 when SARS
auditors in Kroonstad requested an audit of
all the entities and in
2016 referred the matter to the SARS Criminal Investigating Unit.
[6]
Since both Delports pleaded guilty, Mr Higgs confined his evidence to
a bundle of documents specially compiled to demonstrate
the
modus
operandi
and to show how the money was fraudulently claimed as
VAT refunds and moved through the accounts of the various entities
under false/fictitious
inscriptions to hide the origin or
end-destination thereof.
[7]
He explained that
Two Ships Trading Pty Ltd,
the
Delport
Familie
Trust and the
Eden Rock Trust
were registered for
VAT. Their VAT returns were then submitted to SARS. VAT
201 forms were then used to misrepresent
the Input and Output tax of
the various entities. During the SARS investigation the bank
statements of those 3 entities as
well as that of
MN Chemicals
were investigated/examined.
[8]
He used the
Delport Family Trust
which submitted tax returns
on a monthly basis to illustrate an actual transaction for the
November 2013 period. The relevant
return was submitted on 1
December 2013, alleging paid Output tax of R69 890.21 and
claiming Input tax of R628 994.89.
SARS then refunded the
Delport Family Trust
with an amount of R559 104.68
for that month alone. Between May 2011 and September 2014 a
total Output Tax of R601 835.20
was declared for the said Family
Trust, while a total Input Tax of R 15 631 964.62 was
claimed and
R15 030 129.38
was refunded to
the Family Trust.
[9]
He demonstrated that between March 2011 and September 2015 SARS paid
a total refund amount of
R21 767 840.51
to
the
Eden Rock Trust.
Between August 2008 and
January 2012 it refunded
Two Ships Trading (Pty) Ltd
with a total of
R23 591 182.06.
The total refunds paid to all three the entities are
R60 389.95.
All of these refunded
totals regarding these three entities were admitted in the two
section 112(2)
statements.
[10]
For each entity Mr Higgs supplied a list of Incorrect/fictitious
descriptions. Fictitious debit entries of
R4 174 182
were reflected in
Delport Trust
Standard Bank
Account from which the money was then transferred to
MN Chemical
,
yet was indicated on the Trust’s bank statement as, for
instance, a transfer to
Karan Beef
. On MN Chemical’s
bank statement the transfer would be in turn be indicated as one from
Karan Beef
. Mr Higgs then demonstrated how on
4 April
2013
the
R439 187.62
transferred from the
Delport
Family Trust
purportedly “
to Karan Beef March”
was instead received in
MN Chemical’s
Standard Bank
account
on the same day
, described as a “
transfer
from Karan Beef March”
[10]
Mr Higg showed how, in the same way incorrect
Credit entries
to a total of
R5 013 522.41
appeared on the
Delport
Family Trust Account
while the money was actually received in
MN Chemical’s
account. He used, as an
example an entry on 25 September 2013 when an amount of R268 760.19
was purportedly ‘received’
in the Trust’s account
as an “
IB Payment from
Beefmaster
”
while on the same day the R268 760.19 was debited to the MN
Chemicals bank account designated as an “
IB Payment to
Delport Familie Trust”
.
[11]
Mr Higgs demonstrated how, in similar fashion the
Eden Rock
Trust
bank statements between 28 January 2013 and 16 November
2015 reflect, for instance, a payment of R519 812.60 to
MN
Chemicals
, disguised as a “
money transfer to
Karan Beef
January 2013”,
while
MN
Chemicals
’ account on the same date shows a “
transfer
from
Karan Beef
Jan 2013’
” in
the same amount. The Eden Rock Trust statements also reflect
numerous IB Payments in a total amount of
R2 228 405.56
purportedly to the Delport Familie Trust, but regarding which the
correct entity to which the payments were really made, is unknown,
[12]
He showed how the
Eden Rock
Trust incorrectly reflects
Credit payments in a total amount of
R2 310 857.79
which, while they were actually from MN Chemicals, were described
in the statement as, for example, an “
IB payment from
KZN
Transport
”
of R250 145.63 on the very same
date that the
MN Chemicals
account shows an “
IB
payment to Eden Rock Trust”
of R250 145.63.
[13]
Incorrect credit descriptions on the account of
Two Ships
Trading (Pty) Ltd
for money actually received from
MN
Chemicals
total an amount of
R2 174 174.16
.
One such payment of R152 937.87 on 18 December
2012, for instance, was described on the Two Ships Trading bank
statement as “
IB Payment from
Karan Beef
Nov
Inv”
, while on the same date appearing in the
MN
Chemicals
account as an “
IB Payment to Two Ships
Trading” of R152 937.87.
[14]
The
MN Chemicals
account was shown to have had
incorrect credit descriptions to a total of
R33 224 897.81
for disguised payments which it had actually received from Two
Ships Trading, the Eden Rock Trust and the Delport Family Trust
between
20 June 2009 and 16 November 2015. The
MN
Chemicals
account was shown to have received payments from
the
Delport Family Trust
of
R14 342 043.82
,
from the
Eden Rock Trust
R14 668 936.67
and from the
Two Ships Trading Pty Ltd
R22 625 890.51.
In total the 3 entities were found to have paid R51 636 870.10
to MN Chemicals.
[15]
The total refund paid by the SAID to the 3 entities was therefore
R60 389 157.95.
[16]
The role of the Asset Forfeiture Unit is to reclaim what has been
wrongfully gained by criminals. It claims the fruit
of the
crime on behalf of society and in so doing takes the profit out of
crime. If there is a victim of the crime, the money
goes to
that victim. If there is no victim, the money goes into the
Criminal Assets Recovery Account and the Cabinet decides
what to do
with it. In this case SARS should have been the recipient of
whatever funds the Unit were able to recover.
[19]
However, although the Asset Forfeiture Unit attached the properties
belonging to the different entities and to the Accused,
the entities
had to be liquidated because they were mortgaged to different Banks
which had preferential claims. The only
proceeds available to
SARS are the R 507 638.90 obtained from a sale of movables, and
the balance of a property in Kriel with
a value of R900 000.00
minus repayment of its mortgage bond of R133 910.21 to ABSA,
therefore a mere total realisable
amount of R 1 273 728.70.
[20]
As Mr Higgs testified, stealing money from SARS is in effect stealing
money from the community. He stated that with the
R60 million
that was stolen in this case, the Government could have paid the
salaries of 340 primary school teachers or 440 police
officers, or
the social grants for 12 581 children or for 2 827
old age pensioners for an entire year.
[21]
The extent and seriousness of the offence committed in the present
case is clear from Mr Higgs’ testimony. He described
this
particular case as the largest VAT fraud case which the Criminal
Investigating Division of SARS has ever investigated and
brought to
court in the Free State and the Northern Cape. Inevitably,
therefore, SARS is asking for sentences that wstould
reflect the
seriousness of the crime and serve as a deterrent to the community to
commit similar crimes by showing that perpetrators
of so-called
‘white-collar crimes’ will be punished and that no-one
can commit fraud for 6 years and expect to simply
walk away.
[23]
Mr Higgs stated that what the SARS therefore wants for the two
Accused, is long-term incarceration. He testified that
Mr
Marius Delport has since 2016 averred that he was going to repay the
R60 million, but that, in such highly improbable event,
the repayment
should that should merely serve to shorten the duration of the
sentence, not to prevent imprisonment altogether.
[24]
Regarding Mr Norman Delport Mr Higgs stated that SARS realises that
direct imprisonment may not be the most appropriate sentence
for
him. He pleaded guilty to transgression of the VAT Act and the
Administration Act. The sanctions for that offence
are the same
in both Acts, namely a maximum of 5 years’ imprisonment on each
count.
[25]
From the evidence led by Mr Higgs, it is therefore clear, as Adv
Sampisi later argued, that it was an offence that was carefully
planned and executed over a period of at least 6½ years, with
the first return submitted on 25 May 2009 and the last on
1 October
2015. That left the perpetrators sufficient time to reconsider and to
stop their unlawful activities, but the submission
of the fraudulent
claims only stopped when SARS detected and acted upon the
irregularities.
[26]
In his s 112(2) statement, Mr Norman Delport admitted that the 136
Fraud and Alternative Charges against him stemmed from his
directorship and membership of Two Ships Trading 373 (Pty) Ltd and MN
Chemicals Distributors CC, respectively. He admitted that
as Trustee
of the Delport Familie Trust (Charges 1 – 16) and the Eden Rock
Trust (Charges 17 – 32) and as the sole
Director of Two Ships
Trading 373 (Pty) Ltd (Charges 33 to 74) he unlawfully and
intentionally allowed his son, Marius Delport,
to claim on behalf of
the entities VAT repayments of R60 389 151.95.
[27]
He admitted, furthermore, that as Trustee of the Trusts and Director
of the Company, he should not have allowed the claims
for repayment
of the input-VAT, and that he acted recklessly by failing to exercise
the necessary care that is expected from a
company director and a
Trustee.
[28]
He admitted that he allowed his son to create passwords and secret
codes on behalf of the entities which enabled him to submit
claims to
the South African Revenue Services and to claim repayments thereof.
He also failed to ensure that the said claims
were not false, which
they indeed later proved to be. He averred that he was under
the impression that each of the entities
was doing well financially
and admitted that he should have investigated the origin and/or
destination of the funds but failed
to do so.
[29]
Mr Norman Delport admitted, furthermore, that he was a Trustee of the
Delport Familie Trust and the Eden Rock Trust which were
both
registered for VAT, while his son, Marius, was the public
representative of the two Trusts. He admitted, as well, that
he
was the sole Director of Two Ships Trading 373 (Pty) Ltd and the sole
member of MN Chemicals Distributors CC. He admitted, also,
that due
to the false claims submitted by the Trusts and the Company, SARS
suffered a real loss of R60 389 151.95.
[30]
He averred that the Trusts, the Close Corporation and the Company no
longer existed and have been placed under administration
after court
applications by the Asset Forfeiture Unit of the Director of Public
Prosecutions and that he had no knowledge of the
value of the
proceeds from the sale of his fixed and movable property. He
averred, furthermore, that he had been completely
wiped out,
financially, by the aforesaid liquidation steps. He has also lost all
the benefits which he had unknowingly received
from the false VAT
claims. He stated that he no longer had any assets and he and
his wife were dependent on contributions
from relatives for their
subsistence.
[31]
In his s 112(2) statement, Mr Norman Delport then apologised to the
Court and asked forgiveness for allowing his son to financially
deal
with the entities and for his own reckless handling of the trusts,
the close corporation and the company. He admitted
that
he understood the high expectations demanded from persons in control
of such entities, and that he failed to comply therewith.
[32]
In his statement he also asked for the Court’s mercy in
sentencing because of his ill health and his having had to postpone
a
knee replacement and foot operation which causes him daily pain, and
which he had to postpone because of the trial.
[33]
By agreement between the Defence and the State a pre-sentence report
by Mr Johannes A van der Merwe, a Correctional Officer
in the service
of the Department of Correctional Services was handed up regarding
the possibility of considering correctional supervision
as a sentence
for Mr Norman Delport.
[34]
The report indicated that the 68-year old Mr Norman Delport worked
for the Railway Police which was later incorporated into
the South
African Police Services from 1970 to 1983. Thereafter he was
employed at Orkney Electrical Construction for 3 years,
then by
Goldfields Security for 11 years and by Securicor for 2 years.
After his retrenchment he was employed by his son
Marius in MN
Chemical Distributors CC, thereafter worked at his son’s farm
until his son’s business was sequestrated.
[35]
When his son started doing business through Trusts, he became a
Trustee, and through a company, he became a Director.
He moved
into one of his son’s three houses in Woodland Hills Wildlife
Estate. He sold his own house, and took all
his pension money
to assist Marius to start a new business. As a result of this
matter, he and his wife lost everything.
They now stay in a 1-room
flat in the backyard of his daughter’s rental house.
Their only income is the SASSA grants
which they both receive. They
do not have a medical aid and both his and his wife’s health is
very poor.
[36]
Mr van der Merwe remarked that Mr Norman Delport pleaded guilty to
having been reckless in the handling of and control over
trusts, as a
Trustee, as well as of a company, as a Director, and other businesses
which enabled his son, Marius, to commit 136
Counts of Fraud to the
total value of R 60 389 151, 95. The crimes were
committed over a period of more than 6
years, from May 2009 until
October 2015. His son defrauded SARS from the money through
false VAT claims in the name of two
Trusts, of which he was a
Trustee, and of one Company, of which he was the director.
[37]
Mr van der Merwe reported that according to Mr Norman Delport he had
been unaware that his son was committing these crimes
and that he was
aiding him through his authorised signature. Also that he would never
have approved of any criminal activity since
that is absolutely
contrary to his belief and to who he is. Although he admits
that as a result of the false VAT claims SARS
lost an amount of R60.3
million rand, he was never aware of the crimes. According to him some
of the money was recovered through
the Asset Forfeiture Unit who has
sold everything he owned, leaving him without any assets. In
that way every benefit that
he might unknowingly have derived from
the crime, has been lost.
[38]
Regarding Mr Norman Delport’s physical condition, Mr van der
Merwe reported that he was in a lot of pain due to knee
problems and
ulcers. He also suffers from high blood pressure and struggles
with lung problems.
[39]
In considering a possibly suitable sentence, Mr van der Merwe took
into account the nature and seriousness of the crime, the
interests
of the community and the personal circumstances of Mr Norman Delport.
He correctly stated that the sentence must be in
line with the
seriousness of the crime, which in this particular case is very
serious. It is a very large amount of money
that is involved
and the crime was well planned and well executed, perpetrated over a
period of more than 6 years. Normally
that would make a period
of direct imprisonment appear to be the only suitable option, but, he
stated, in this instance one has
to take into account the specific
role Mr Norman Delport played in the execution of the crime.
[40]
In that regard Mr van der Merwe pointed out that Mr Norman Delport
was unaware that he was involved in crime. However,
through his
reckless and negligent handling of his authority in the businesses
and the trusts, he did unknowingly allow the crimes
to be
perpetrated. He trusted his son and signed documents without
questioning his son’s requests. His contribution
to the
crime was therefore serious since, through his reckless handling of
these matters, he enabled his son to defraud SARS of
more than R60
million. Regarding that, however, Mr van der Merwe stated that
the court should take into account that Mr Delport
never had the
intention to commit crime, and that he is ashamed of and feels
incredibly sorry for what he has done, that he shows
remorse for not
acting more responsibly and that he admitted his guilt regarding the
very serious crimes that have been committed.
[41]
Mr van der Merwe described Mr Norman Delport is an aged man who shows
no tendency to commit crime and who does not appear to
pose any risk
to the community. His crime was one of negligence rather than
intent. He has lost everything he has worked
for all his life
and everything he might unknowingly have received as a benefit from
the crime and is not a criminal in the true
sense of the word.
[42]
At 68 he is a first offender who had no intention to commit a crime,
and who is struggling with his own health problems whilst
assisting
his wife, to whom he has been married for 42 years, and who is in
very poor health. He is now just a poor, elderly
man with no
assets, who is, in a sense, a victim in his own case.
[43]
Mr van der Merwe stated that he could not think of any reason why Mr
Norman Delport should be removed from society. It
would not be
in anyone’s best interest to send him to prison. He does not
appear to pose any risk of committing any further
crime and has
already suffered a lot as a result of this case.
[44]
Mr van der Merwe considered two options regarding sentence: a) a
community based one based on a sentence such as correctional
supervision, regarding which the community service part of the
sentence will have to be revisited due to his old age and health
condition, or b) a wholly suspended sentence of direct imprisonment.
He concluded that, while it is possible to administer
as sentence of
correctional supervision in terms of
section 276(1)(h)
of the
Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977
, Mr Norman Delport’s health
would affect the possibility of serving community service.
In his opinion, therefore,
a sentence of direct imprisonment in terms
of
section 276(1)(b)
of the CPA, suspended in full, would be more
appropriate in the light of the circumstances of this case.
[45]
On 2 December 2019 Mr Norman Delport took the stand to testify in
mitigation of his sentence. He was very emotional,
to such an
extent that he had difficulty speaking. His remorse was
obviously sincere. He confirmed that he had pleaded guilty
to the
alternative charges as set out in his
section 112(2)
statement and
stated that he had been ignorant and reckless and that it is only now
that he comprehends the huge losses suffered
by SARS, the Banks and
his family. He stated that he never realised what his
negligence would cause. He never realised,
either, what the
purpose of his presence on the farm was or what the consequences of
his signature on the documents would be.
[46]
He stated that he had trusted his son. He believed that his son
knew what he was doing and was neither aware of, nor
believed that
there would be any irregularities. He then apologised to the
Court and to everyone who had suffered through
his actions and stated
that he wished he had an opportunity to make amends. He stated
that he had never before been involved
in any unlawful actions and
gave the assurance that he will never be involved in any again.
[47]
Mr Reyneke, in mitigation on behalf of Mr Norman Delport, submitted
that his involvement was of a lesser degree than that of
his son and
that his conduct was reckless and constituted
dolus eventualis
rather than
dolus directus.
He had indicated right from
the outset that he wanted to plead guilty, as is evident from the
reply to the
section 212B
notice and his
section 112(2)
statement.
He admitted that he had enabled his son to commit fraud to the extent
of R60 million. And despite all the postponements
to allow his son to
repay the said R60 million, it appeared that that was not going to
happen.
[48]
He submitted, furthermore, that Mr Norman Delport lost his entire
material existence. He is aware of the damage caused
and takes
responsibility therefore, which is an indication that he can be
rehabilitated. He submitted that Mr Norman Delport
was good
human material who apologised to SARS and even to his own family.
His involvement enabled his son to commit the
fraud. His remorse is
real – it complied with Ponnan JA’s description in
S
v Matyityi
[1]
of remorse as “a gnawing pain of an offender’s conscience
for the plight of another.”
[49]
Mr Reyneke argued that it is evident from Mr van der Merwe’s
pre-sentence report how Mr Norman Delport got involved in
the matter
and how, due to his generosity, he put all his funds into his son’s
business, only to lose everything. He
also consented to the
confiscation of his only remaining asset, which is a sign of his
generosity and his remorse. He and
his wife worked for their
money long before these fraudulent events commenced.
[50]
Mr Reyneke pointed out, furthermore, that the health of both Mr
Norman Delport and his wife is very poor. According to
him,
they will serve ‘sentences’ for the rest of their lives:
if their daughter does not provide accommodation
for them, they will
be out on the street. Much worse than the sentence itself, is
the fact that they now have to live on
charity and depend on the
generosity of others.
[51]
He pointed out that although Mr Norman Delport had pleaded intent, it
is clear that he had been caught up in the scheme and
swept along
while he was under the impression that everything was in order and
the businesses were doing well. He emphasised
that Mr van der
Merwe stated that Mr Norman Delport had learnt his lesson and was
unlikely to commit another crime. Also
that, although he said
that correctional supervision could be considered, the circumstances
of the case militated against that
and concluded that fully suspended
imprisonment would be more appropriate. He pointed out that Mr
Higgs of SARS also stated
that unsuspended direct imprisonment would
not be suitable for Mr Delport Snr.
[52]
Adv Sampisi argued in aggravation that it was not SARS that lost the
money, but the country’s fiscus. He referred
to what Mr
Higgs had testified about all that the Government could have done
with the money and stated that the time has come for
courts to put a
stop to such crimes. He emphasised that the crimes were committed
over a period of 6 years and that there had been
sufficient time to
reconsider and stop the crimes. He also referred to what Mr Higgs had
said about direct imprisonment for Mr
Norman Delport.
[53]
The State then requested that Mr Norman Delport be sentenced to 5
years’ imprisonment in terms of
section 276(1)(b)
on each of
the 136 counts of contravening the VAT Act and the
Tax Administration
Act, and
that all the sentences be served simultaneously for an
effective sentence of 5 years, to be wholly suspended for 5 years.
[54]
Defrauding SARS of R60 million in Value Added Tax is obviously a very
serious crime. Mr Norman Delport admitted his role
in allowing
the fraud to be perpetrated through his own reckless conduct as a
Trustee of the two Trusts, and as the sole director
of the company
and sole member of the Close corporation through which the fraudulent
refunds were obtained and channelled.
In sentencing the court
needs to take into account the seriousness of the crime and mete out
punishment that fits the criminal
as well as the crime, is fair to
society and is blended with a measure of mercy according to the
circumstances of the case.
[55]
As was held in
S v Grundling 2015 JDR 2055 (SCA)
, the fact
that an accused is a suitable candidate for correctional supervision
does not mean that a non-custodial sentence has
to be imposed.
In that respect I refer to
S v Lister
in which Nienaber JA
held that
“
to focus on the
well-being of the accused at the expense of the other aims of
sentencing and the interests of the community was
to distort the
process and to produce, in all likelihood, a warped sentence.”
[56]
I consider apposite in the circumstances of this accused the
principle expressed by the Court in
S v Grundling at par [18]
regarding a 65 year old first offender who pleaded guilty to and
was convicted of 30 counts of contravening the VAT Act, that
“
the imposition of
an appropriate sentence should be approached with a ‘humane and
compassionate understanding for human frailties
and the pressure’
that contributed to the commission of the crimes.”
[57]
In doing so I accept that Mr Delport snr’s age and poor health
as well as his sincere remorse, his acceptance of the
blame for his
role in the case, his clean record, and all the mitigating factors
set out in Mr van der Merwe’s report lessen
his moral
blameworthiness. Considering his lesser role in the commission
of the offences and the circumstances in which he
was involved, I am
of the view that he should not be physically imprisoned.
[58]
Although Mr Delport is not a threat to society according to Mr van
der Merwe’s report, and although long term direct
imprisonment
due to his age and poor health is not justifiable, the sentence
should, in view of the seriousness of the crime, still
reflect an
appropriate measure of rebuke for his reckless conduct and should
serve to deter others from getting involved in similar
crimes.
[59]
But, although heavy sentences are asked for to serve as deterrent to
others,
[2]
a judge in dealing
with so-called ‘white-collar crime’ still has to ensure
that the sentence it imposes is proportional
to the crime.
[60]
In considering all the factors mentioned above, I am of the view that
the imposition of a sentence such as correctional supervision,
besides being inappropriate in view of Mr Delport Snr’s
advanced age and poor health, would dilute the seriousness of the
offence and disregard the impact of the actual loss of R60,3 million
to the fiscus. Therefore a stricter sentence which would reflect
the
seriousness of the crime, yet still take into account the mitigating
factors, is called for.
[61]
In my view a sentence in terms of s 276(1)(b) of 5 years’
imprisonment on each of the 136 counts, all to be served
simultaneously,
and with the effective sentence of 5 years wholly
suspended, as recommended by the State, would be both appropriate and
proportionate.
[62]
Mr
Marius Delport
also submitted a Plea explanation in terms
of S112(2) of the CPA on the first trial date of 3 June 2019.
He pleaded guilty
on the 136 charges of fraud, of which 104 are to be
read with Section 51(2) and Part II of Schedule 2 of Act 105 of
1997.
He admitted that his legal representative explained to
him the applicability and implications of the provisions of that
section
with reference to the prescribed minimum sentences. In
the statement he also confirmed that he made it freely, voluntarily
and without any undue influence. Upon the Court’s
questions he also confirmed verbally the contents of the statement,
that the contents were in accordance with the instructions that he
gave to his legal representative and that it was his signature
appended to the statement.
[63]
He denied having formed a common purpose with his father and his
mother (Accuseds 1 and 2) to commit the crimes as alleged.
He
averred that neither of his parents knows how to work on computers
and stated that he handled the financial management of the
Delport
Family Trust, the Eden Rock Trust, the Two Ships Company and the MN
Chemicals Distribution Close Corporation and that he
submitted the
claims to SARS on their behalf.
[64]
He admitted that he registered all four of the said entities with
SARS and that in that way he had access to the passwords
and secret
codes pertaining to each entity which he then used to claim repayment
of the input-VAT from SARS on behalf of all four
of the entities. the
Delport Family Trust, the Eden Rock Trust, the Two Ships company and
the MN Chemicals Close Corporatio.
[65]
He then admitted that he submitted the Input-VAT claims and that his
parents, did not have direct knowledge thereof.
He averred
that, although the claims were deposited into the bank accounts of
the different entities, his father as sole director
of the company
and sole member of the CC, and as Trustee of the two Trusts, was
under the impression that the entities were doing
well financially.
[66]
According to him, the monies received from the input-VAT refunds were
used to finance their farming activities and impact studies
for a
bio-gas plant, but admitted that some of the money was also used for
himself and his father. He averred, furthermore, as
Mr Higgs also
testified, that some of the claims were for real expenses, but stated
that, because he no longer had the invoices,
he did not dispute the
State’s allegations. He then averred that the Court would
be apprised at a later stage, during
argument regarding sentencing,
of his proposal for the repayment of the amount owed.
[67]
In the statement he thanked the State for withdrawing the money
laundering charges (137 to 200) against him after negotiations.
He stated that he wished to plead guilty to the charges because he
had unlawfully and intentionally claimed and received the amount
of
R60 389 151.95 from SARS. He admitted to being the
Trust beneficiary and the public representative of both Trusts.
He
also confirmed that, although his father, Norman Delport, was the
sole director of the company and the sole member of the close
corporation, he himself handled the finances of both. He
admitted, furthermore, that the false claims submitted on behalf
of
the Trusts and the close corporation caused SARS to suffer a real
loss of R60 389 151.95.
[68]
Like his father, Mr Marius Delport also averred that none of the four
entities still existed and stated that all of them had
been placed
under administration after applications by the Asset Forfeiture Unit
of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
He also averred that he
had no knowledge of the proceeds of the sale in execution of his
fixed and movable properties, and that
he was financially completely
wiped out by the said liquidation steps. Like his father, he
also claimed to have lost all
benefits which he had received from the
false VAT claims and averred that he owned no fixed assets.
[69]
He also alleged that ever since his arrest he has made it clear that
he intended to repay the money to the State. According
to him
he still intended to do so, since he has developed
and sold
a patent. He averred, furthermore, that on 5 November 2018
the Court gave him the opportunity to sell the patent in order
to repay the moneys to SARS. According to him, the sales amount
would be sufficient to pay back the R60+ million mentioned
in the
indictment. He stated that his legal representative would deal
with the repayment during argument before sentence.
Like Mr Delport
Snr, he also admitted the various total amounts refunded to the
various entities as set out in Mr Higgs’
testimony.
[61]
In the statement he also apologised to the Court for his deeds and
averred that, although he committed the deeds because of
the easy
access to such claims, he offered to assist SARS to notice and
prevent such claims more easily.
[62]
He alleged, furthermore, that he had changed his life for the better
and that he wished to continue to care for his wife and
his minor
children. He also asked for mercy in sentencing.
[63]
On
3 June 2019
Mr Marius Delport was then convicted in
accordance with his s 112(2) statement of 136 counts of fraud,
regarding which the minimum
sentences regime in terms of Section
51(2) read with Part II of Schedule 2 of Act 105 of 1997 is
applicable to Counts 33 to 136.
The relevant prescribed minimum
of 15 years’ imprisonment per count is the applicable sentence
in terms of that provision.
[64]
His bail was not reinstated. He then instructed his legal
representative to argue that he could not be incarcerated because
it
would be too difficult for the Correctional Services officer, Mr van
der Merwe, to travel to Grootvlei Prison, just outside
Bloemfontein,
to conduct an interview with him in order to compile a pre-sentence
report.
[65]
The next day,
on 4 June,
he then instructed his legal
representative to inform the Court that he could not be incarcerated
because he needed to travel to
Johannesburg to sell a patent he had
developed. With that money he intended to repay SARS.
But, he averred, no-one
else than him could go. He could
neither give his legal representative a power of attorney to go and
do the deal on his behalf,
nor have the SAPS or Correctional Services
take him there, because if “they” saw anyone else, the
“deal would
be off”. The “they” was
never identified, neither was any detail about the patent, the place
where the
purported transaction was to take place, or the purported
buyers of the alleged patent ever provided. His request was
refused.
[66]
After Mr Higgs’ testimony, the trial was
postponed to 12
June 2019
to obtain a pre-sentence report regarding Mr Marius
Delport’s suitability for a sentence such as correctional
supervision.
On the 12
th
, however, his
Legal Aid representative informed the Court that Mr Marius Delport
now alleged that he had never intended to plead
guilty and had
terminated his mandate, and that a certain Mr Jacques van Niekerk, a
private attorney of Somerset West, would henceforth
represent him.
The trial was then remanded to
21 June 2019
for the said Mr
van Niekerk to bring an application for a change of plea.
[64]
On
21 June 2019
Mr van Niekerk did not appear and the Court
was informed that he had indicated by e-mail that due to lack of
funds or instructions,
he was not going to represent Mr Marius
Delport. It was then placed on record that Mr Marius Delport
wished to reapply for
Legal Aid and that, because an alleged attorney
was going to visit him in Grootvlei in the next week, he would inform
his former
Legal Aid attorney by the 25
th
whether he was
indeed going to re-apply for Legal Aid. The matter was then
rolled
to 2 July
for him to apply.
[65]
On the Friday, he indicated that he wanted Legal Aid. The Court
was informed that the alleged
patent transaction would be
finalised by 10 and 11 July
, and a
postponement until 15 July
was requested
. The State reluctantly agreed, stating that the
matter had already been on the roll for a year since it was first set
down on the
Regional Court roll in November 2016 already, thereafter
on the pre-trial roll for 8 June 2018, then set down for trial on 5
November
2018 when another judge granted a postponement upon being
informed that the patent transaction would be finalised in four
months.
After another pre-trial on 2 February 2019, trial dates
for 3 to 12 June 2019 were allocated.
[66]
On
15 July 2019
the Court was informed that no legal
representation had been arranged for that date, but that the
transaction for the transfer of the patent had been finalised and
that the sales amount exceeded the R60 million
which was owed to
SARS. It was indicated that Mr Van Niekerk had to be placed in funds,
and would then arrange with Adv Johan Nel,
alternatively Adv Nel of
Kimberley,
to appear on 24 July 2019
to assist with an
application for a change of plea and possibly for a separation of
trials. Adv Sampisi confirmed that the
State was ready with
certain proposals and would be in a better position to negotiate if
Mr Marius Delport had legal representation.
He submitted that,
therefore, it would be in the interests of justice to grant another
postponement to 24 July 2019. The
matter was then
remanded accordingly.
[67]
On
24 July 2019
Mr Delport confirmed that the
patent
transaction had been finalised and the patent had been reregistered.
He averred that funds had been transferred to Van Niekerk’s
account on Friday 19 July 2019. An e-mail was received
from Van
Niekerk, however, stating that he had not been placed in funds,
therefore neither he nor counsel would be appearing.
The matter
stood down until 14:00 to see if the purported fees transfer showed
on his account. By 14:00 there was nothing.
[68]
Further trial dates were then arranged by agreement for 7 to 11
October 2019, 2 to 6 December 2019 and 9 to 13 December 2019.
The Court granted
a final postponement to 7 October 2019
and
put on record that the trial would proceed on 7 October with or
without a legal representative for Mr Marius Delport.
He was
advised that any legal consultation had to take place before then,
and that, if legal representation indeed materialised
before then,
the Court could be approached for the intended applications to be
brought earlier. He was strongly urged to appoint
legal
representatives due to the complexity of the matter.
[69]
On
7 October
, however, no legal representative had been
instructed and Mr Delport indicated that he wanted to appear in
person. He then proceeded
with an oral application for a change of
plea. He averred that his religious belief would not allow him to
plead guilty to ‘something
he had not done’, that he
wanted to plead not guilty regarding all invoices issued by Two Ships
Trading to the Delport Family
Trust and the Eden Rock Trust, although
he admitted that he submitted the ‘invoices’ to SARS and
moved the money between
the different accounts on one Mark Veitz’s
instructions. He then alleged that he had pleaded guilty under
duress and
out of fear because he had been threatened by Veitz with
retaliation against his parents. He provided no details regarding who
or what this Mark Veitz was, what his alleged connection with the
Delports was, or when or why he had allegedly threatened him.
[70]
He also alleged that his erstwhile attorney had refused to put a
paragraph about Mark Veitz and Two Ships Trading in his s
112(2)
statement and failed to show him the statement until they were in
court on 3 June 2019. Mr Reyneke refuted his allegations
and placed
on record that he discussed the paragraph with Mr Delport and told
him that if it was included, he could not plead guilty
to the charges
relating to Two Ships Trading, and that Mr Delport then specifically
instructed him to leave out the paragraph and
proceed with the guilty
plea to the Two Ships Trading charges for which he would take
responsibility.
[71]
Mr Reyneke also placed on record that he then showed to and discussed
the s 112(2) statement without the relevant paragraph
with the State
on 24 May 2019 and that he also provided it to and discussed it with
Mr Marius Delport. That was a week before
the trial started.
Once again one needs to see Mr Delport’s averments in the light
of his assurances to the Court on 3 June
2019 that the s 112(2)
statement and the contents thereof were in accordance with his
instructions to his attorney. In reply Mr
Delport then conceded that
Mr Reyneke’s version was correct. He then stated that since
Mark Veitz was no longer in the picture,
he could now ‘throw
him under the bus’.
[72]
Mr Reyneke also placed on record that Mr Marius Delport’s reply
to the s 212B notice on 15 February 2019 already addressed
the Two
Ships Trading issue and that even in that document Mr Marius Delport
stated that he was responsible for all three of the
entities.
[73]
The State opposed Mr Delport’s application and Adv Sampisi
submitted that the latter had been granted numerous postponements
for
Legal Representation. Throughout he had maintained that once
the patent transaction had been finalised he would pay back
the R60
million. He stated that since 2016 SARS had engaged Mr Marius
Delport directly and in vain requested him to submit
the said or any
invoices. Even after he was charged with fraud and money
laundering, he still failed to provide any.
It was only after
his conviction on 3 June that he averred that someone else was
responsible. He stated, furthermore, that
Mr Delport himself in
the paragraph that he alleged should have been included, stated the
money received from SARS had been paid
into their entities and that
he himself transferred the money to other accounts.
[74]
Due to the paucity of information and the complete lack of detail
about any of the averments provided by Mr Marius Delport,
and
in view of the State’s opposition, the Court could not find
that his application complied with any of the criteria
on which a
change of plea could be allowed. In the Court’s view Mr
Delport had indeed failed to provide a reasonable
explanation as
required. The application was then dismissed. So was his
request to be granted bail.
[75]
On
8 October 2019
the Asset Forfeiture Unit successfully
applied for an Interim Confiscation Order in terms of s 18 of POCA
regarding the last property
on Mr Norman Delport’s name, a
house in Reitz. Mr Norman Delport did not oppose the
application and Mr Marius Delport
asked for a complete inventory of
all the assets that have been and are still to be sold. The
Order was granted. On
2 December 2019 the Order was made final
by agreement between all the parties.
[76]
The Court was then requested to stand down until
2 December 2019
to enable Mr van der Merwe of Correctional Services to prepare
pre-sentence reports for both Mr Norman Delport and Mr Marius Delport
(at his own request).
[77]
When the trial resumed on
2 December 2019
, Mr Marius Delport
once again attempted to move an oral application for a change of
Plea, on substantially the same grounds as
the previous one, once
again in person. For the same reasons it was dismissed.
Regarding his averment that he wanted
to apply for leave to appeal,
he was informed that that should wait until after he had been
sentenced.
[78]
He then averred that he now had three advocates available.
Without providing any details about them, he averred that
they would
be ready to consult with him on 11 December and to appear on 12, 13,
and 14 December 2019 (which is a Saturday) ‘to
take his case
further’. I put it on record that up to today no
communication has been received at the Court, nor have
any attempts
been made to make arrangements for their appearance from any of the
alleged advocates or from any instructing attorney.
[79]
On
3 December 2019
Mr Marius Delport was granted an
opportunity to testify or submit arguments in mitigation of
sentence. He then averred that
Mark Veitz was the real
perpetrator who stole the SARS money and that he would not rest until
Veitz was made to pay for his deeds.
[80]
He stated that he was not asking for leniency or for mitigation
because he was not pleading guilty. Regarding his personal
circumstances, he stated that he is 38 years old, that he has known
his wife since 2008, that they got married in 2011 and that
they have
two daughters of 7 and 10, respectively, that his wife only recently
found employment and that his daughters attend Oranje
Meisieskool but
that their continued attendance was in jeopardy because his wife
cannot afford the school fees. According
to him he became a
born again Christian in 2011 when he got married, and he now reads
the Bible to his co-inmates.
[81]
He then apologised to his parents for his having been naïve
enough to believe Mark Veitz and to believe that he could
improve all
of their circumstances. He stated that his parents had lost
everything, from the Danielskuil farm, his father’s
entire
pension to their Bronkhorstspruit house. He then averred that
all items that that had been attached, from the houses
to the cars,
had not been paid for in cash and that all the properties had been
mortgaged.
[82]
He then maintained that he was not guilty on all the charges,
especially not those relating to Two Ships Trading and again
averred
that Veitz had issued invoices regarding the Delport Family Trust and
the Eden Rock Trusts. He then averred that he did
not know that the
Two Ships Trading Invoices were unlawful and that he never saw a Two
Ships Trading VAT return. He maintained
that he was guilty
because he had allowed Veitz to manipulate him and that Veitz had
lied by promising to buy his patent, but now
his name does not even
appear as a director of the company who did buy it. He averred
that he was told if he threw Veitz
under the bus, the latter would
withdraw the patent-right. He again
confirmed that the patent had
indeed been sold
, but averred that he has no access to the
proceeds.
[83]
He predicted that SARS was going to lose even more money and that, if
he were to be given an opportunity to do so, he would
be willing to
give SARS his full co-operation and would provide the names of the
persons and the four other businesses that are
benefiting from this
matter so that the persons really responsible for it, can be brought
to justice.
[84]
Adv Sampisi then argued in aggravation of sentence regarding Mr
Marius Delport. He pointed out that originally
he pleaded
guilty to 136 counts of Fraud of which 104 resorted under s 51(2)(a)
read with Part II of Schedule 2 of Act 105 of 1997,
then brought
applications to change his plea to one of ‘not guilty’.
He pointed out that the first fraudulent
return was submitted in May
2009 already and the last one in October 2015, and that each such
fraudulent submission constituted
one offence.
[85]
He argued that the fraud was well-planned and well-orchestrated and
committed over a period of 6 years during which Mr Marius
Delport had
all the time in the world to rethink his actions and to stop them.
He did not do so until SARS stepped in after
an audit of the payment
of the refunds. That it was a well-planned scheme, is evident
from the fact that it was not only
false returns that were submitted,
(and which his s 112(2) statement stated it was solely Mr Marius
Delport who submitted those),
but that there were also false
inscriptions made on the bank statements to hide the origin or
destination of the money.
[86]
He referred to the huge amount of R60 million and to Mr Higg’s
statement that it is the biggest tax fraud case to have
been brought
to court in the FS, which emphasises the seriousness of the offence.
He also pointed out the community’s
direct interest in the
matter in that SARS provides the money for social needs such as those
mentioned by Mr Higgs, including the
SASSA grants from which Mr
Delport’s parents benefit. He referred to the
Government’s being criticised for failed
service delivery and
stated that it was people like Mr Marius Delport who contribute to
that by robbing the fiscus.
[87]
Adv Sampisi then averred that Mr Delport does not show remorse for
his offences. He does not accept blame for his deeds.
He
had 6 years in which to come clean. SARS engaged him in
negotiations during which he told them that Mark Veitz was a very
good friend who wanted to save him by buying his trade mark so SARS
can be repaid. He argued that Mr Marius Delport was been
given
numerous opportunities to obtain legal representation while he did
everything he could to delay the matter, even as recently
as
yesterday.
[88]
Adv Sampisi, in emphasising the seriousness of the matter, referred
to
Thankwane v S
682/2018 ZASCA (17 September 2019) in which a
person who defrauded the Department of Education of R4.9 million and
who was prepared
to pay back the money and even had the money ready
to do so, was sentenced to 20 years’ direct imprisonment, the
Court holding
that repayment was not enough – direct
imprisonment was also necessary.
[89]
He also referred to
Nxele v S
, an unreported appeal judgment
of the Johannesburg High Court, A76/2017 (12 September 2017) where
the accused pleaded guilty to
fraud in the amount of R8.9 million
committed over a period of 4 years and 9 months, and was sentenced on
appeal to 15 years’
imprisonment.
[87]
Mr Sampisi stated that it was clear that SARS would not recover the
R60 million in this matter and that the Asset Forfeiture
Unit has
only succeeded in recovering R1,2 million compared to the R60 million
owed to SARS. He submitted that in view of
all of the above,
the only appropriate sentence would be 20 years’ direct
imprisonment.
[88]
I agree with Mr Sampisi’s submissions that the offences
committed are very serious and that Mr Marius Delport had plenty
of
time to reconsider his involvement, but failed to do so until SARS
detected the fraudulent scheme. He now avers that he
was not
aware of the unlawfulness of certain returns and implied that he was
not to be blamed for that since the SARS officers
are better
qualified than he was, yet took 6 years to detect the
irregularities. He cannot rely on being ignorant, however,
since on his own version, he partially completed a B.Com degree.
[89]
It is obvious that he has not disclosed to the Court his full
involvement in this matter. His averments are vague and
bare in
the extreme. Until today, for example, this Court is none the wiser
as to who the averred Mark Veitz is that plays such
a prominent role
in his explanations, or as to when or where and why he entered or
exited the picture, since the Two Ships Trading
returns apparently
stopped in 2012 already, according to the records submitted by
Mr Higgs, or as to when he allegedly threatened
Mr Marius Delport.
[90]
I agree also that his remorse is not genuine, as described by Rumpff
J in
S v
Seegers
[3]
“
Remorse as an
indication that the offence will not be committed again, is obviously
an important consideration, in suitable cases,
when the deterrent
effect of a sentence on the accused is adjudicated, but in order to
be a valid consideration, the penitence
must be sincere and the
accused must take the court fully into its confidence. Unless
that happens the genuineness of contrition
alleged to exist cannot be
determined.”
[91]
If one has regard to the sequence of events in this matter, starting
from 2016 when it was first set down in the Regional Court,
it is
obvious that Mr Marius Delport has gone out of his way to delay the
conclusion thereof. His numerous undertakings that
time and
again came to nothing has had a serious negative impact on his
credibility.
[92]
In terms of s 51(2) read with Part II of Schedule 2 of Act 105 of
1997 the prescribed minimum sentence pertaining to each of
the 104
counts of fraud that involved more than R500 000.00, is 15
years’ imprisonment for a first offender, such as
Mr Marius
Delport. It is trite that a court may only depart from such a
minimum sentence if there are substantial and compelling
circumstances which would justify a lesser sentence.
[93]
In
S v
Kruger
[4]
the SCA confirmed that punishment of a convicted person should not be
likened to revenge. It must have all the elements of
and
purposes of punishment, prevention, retribution, individual and
general deterrence and rehabilitation. The retributive
element
has as its aim the expression of public revulsion to the commission
of the offences.
[94]
In
DPP,
Gauteng v Pistorius
[5]
the SCA held that retribution and deterrence are proper purposes of
punishment and that they must be accorded due weight in any
sentence.
Serious crimes will usually require that retribution and
deterrence should be primary considerations and rehabilitation
will
play a smaller role. The personal circumstances of the accused
cannot be the dominant factor at the expense of the well-established
aims or purposes of sentencing.
[95]
I have considered as potentially mitigating that Mr Marius Delport at
38 is still relatively young. His age, however,
can only be a
neutral factor since there is no evidence that his relative
youthfulness has in any way affected his judgment.
[96]
I did accept as mitigating that he has a wife who now needs to work
to support their two daughters. I have also taken
into account
that he has no previous criminal record except for the speeding fine,
and that he and his family has now lost everything
they had and are
largely dependent on others to subsist.
[97]
I have considered the fact that he has offered to assist SARS to
locate the other people and businesses who are benefiting
from this
scheme, but cannot take that as a real mitigating factor since he has
had numerous opportunities to do so since 2016
and has failed to do
so until he now finds himself in a corner. The same applies to
his numerous ‘offers’ to
pay back the R60 million, which
likewise have come to nothing.
[97]
Factors that I cannot regard as mitigating is Mr Marius Delport’s
absence of any true remorse. He did apologise
to his parents
for involving them in this matter, but in my view did not exhibit the
sincerity and true pain and shame for what
he has caused others that
are required in
S v Matyityi
and in
S v Seergers
and he
has time and again failed to take the Court into his confidence.
Instead of accepting blame for his own deeds he kept blaming
others,
from Veitz to his own attorney to SARS which he blamed for not
detecting the irregularities earlier. In the absence
of
recognising and accepting responsibility for one’s conduct,
there can be nor remorse and the possibility of rehabilitation
is minimal.
[98]
The seriousness of the offence, the lack of remorse, the numerous
undertakings that came to nothing, the continuous attempts
to delay
the trial which caused his own father serious prejudice by preventing
the finalisation of this matter, the failure to
take the court into
his confidence, are all aggravating circumstances which in my view
cumulatively far outweigh the mitigating
circumstances in this case.
I am therefore unable to find that there are substantial and
compelling circumstances which would justify
a lesser sentence than
the prescribed one of 15 years’ imprisonment for each of the
counts involving more than R500 000.
Wherefore
I sentence you as follows:
1.
Mr
NORMAN FREDERICK DELPORT:
You are
SENTENCED
1. To
5 (FIVE) years’
imprisonment on each of Counts 1 – 74
2. To
5 (FIVE) years’
imprisonment on each of Counts 75 - 136
3. All 136 sentences are
to be served simultaneously so as to constitute an effective sentence
of
5 (FIVE) years’
imprisonment which is wholly
suspended for a period of
5 (FIVE) years
on condition that the
Accused is not again convicted of the crime of contravention of the
Value Added Tax Act or the
Tax Administration Act committed
during
the period of suspension.
4. The Accused is NOT
declared unfit to possess a firearm in terms of the Firearms and
Ammunition Act, 60/2000.
2.
Mr
MARIUS DELPORT:
You are
SENTENCED:
1. To
10 (TEN) years’
imprisonment on each of Counts 1 – 32
2. To
15 (FIFTEEN)
years’ imprisonment on each of Counts 33 – 136
3. All 136 sentences are
to be served simultaneously so as to constitute an effective sentence
of
15 (FIFTEEN) years’
imprisonment.
4. No order is made in
terms of Section 103 of the Firearms and Ammunitions Control Act, 60
of 2000.
__________________________
MURRAY,
AJ
On
behalf of the State:
Adv W Sampisi
Offices of the Director
of Public Prosecutions
Waterfall
Centre
Aliwal Street
BLOEMFONTEIN
On
behalf of Accused 1:
Mr D Reyneke
Bloemfontein Justice
Centre
Legal Aid South Africa
BLOEMFONTEIN
On
behalf of Accused 2:
Mr Marius Delport in person
Grootvlei Correctional
Institue
BLOEMFONTEIN
[1]
2011(1) SACR 40 (SCA) at par [13]
[2]
Hancke, former AJP of the Free State High Court in Organised Crime
and Proceeds of Crime Law in South Africa, at p. ix
[3]
1970 (2) SA 506
(A) at 511 G - H
[4]
2012 (1) SACR 369 (SCA)
[5]
2018 (1) SACR 115
(SCA) at paras [23] and [22]