IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN
Case No: A43/26
Lower Court Case No.: PRCA 152/2023
In the matter between:
MARK BEZUIDENHOUT
and
THE STATE
Coram: Pangarker J et Anderssen AJ
Heard: 15 June 2026
Delivered: Electronically on 9 July 2026
Reportable/Not Reportable
Appellant
Respondent
Summary: Appeal against sentence - sentence is neither disturbingly
inappropriate nor out of proportion to the magnitude of the offences - aggravating
circumstances substantial - trial court did not exercise discretion as to sentence
unreasonably
ORDER
1 . The appeal is dismissed.
2. The sentence of ten [1 0] years' direct imprisonment on count 1 (fraud) is
confirmed.
3. The sentence of ten [1 OJ years' direct imprisonment on count 2
(contravention of section 4{a) as read with sections 1, 4{i), 4(ii) and 8 of the
Prevention of Organized Crime Act 121 of 1998 - money laundering), of
which five (5) years shall run concurrently with the sentence imposed on
count 1 {in terms of section 280(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of
1977), is confirmed.
JUDGMENT
Anderssen AJ (Pangarker J concurring)
[1] The appellant appeals against the sentence imposed by the Paarl Regional
Court in respect of convictions of fraud and money laundering. On 13 June
2022 the appellant had falsely informed the complainant (the owner of
Autodrome Cars) that a vehicle is available for purchase at a price of
R220 000. He well knew that there was no such vehicle to purchase. The
complainant, on 17 June 2022, paid R220 000 in respect of the non-existent
vehicle to the appellant's bank account. The appellant immediately paid
R217 500 of this amount into a third party's bank account to settle a 'debt'
with the third party.
2
[2] Approximately one year later the appellant was arrested on 20 June 2023.
More than two years later, after multiple appearances in court, on 6
November 2025, the appellant pleaded guilty to both charges and was
sentenced on the same day to an effective 15 years' imprisonment. He was
sentenced to 10 years each on the charges of fraud and money laundering
but the regional magistrate directed that 5 of the 10 years on the money
laundering conviction was to run concurrently with the sentence on the fraud
charge.
[3] It was not clear from the submissions made by the appellant what the
grounds were on which the appellant relied to appeal against the sentence.
At the hearing the appellant's counsel relied, particularly, on the duration of
the sentences and the fact that only 5 years of the sentence in respect of
money laundering were directed to run concurrently with the fraud count. In
her written submissions, she had proposed 8 years as an appropriate
sentence , particularly as, to a large extent, the offences originated from the
same set of facts. The respondent's counsel, on the other hand, argued that
the sentences were appropriate in all the circumstances of the case,
particularly when regard is had to the aggravating circumstances present.
We agree with her.
[4] The appellant had, on 7 September 2018, in the Nelspruit Regional Court,
been convicted on 9 counts of theft. At that stage, he was a first offender.
He was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment of which that court suspended
6 years for 5 years on condition that he was not again convicted of theft or
fraud during the period of suspension. Despite being effectively sentenced
to 4 years, the appellant was incarcerated for less than 1 0 months and
3
released on correctional supervision on 24 June 2019. The correctional
supervision concluded on 6 September 2022. The fraud and money
laundering offences were thus committed by the appellant whilst he was
under correctional supervision and during the period of suspension. We
consider this an important aggravating factor.
[5] As the regional magistrate pointed out, the appellant was afforded the
opportunity of rehabilitating himself - not only because of the suspended
sentence but also because of the early release from prison and the
placement under correctional supervision. Instead of availing himself of this
opportunity, the appellant committed further, more serious, crimes of fraud
and money laundering. Fraud is a serious offence, which has become
prevalent in our society, with a wide-ranging economic impact. The same is
true of money laundering. None of the money (a substantial sum of
R220 000 that would have taken time to accumulate for the complainant),
which the complainant paid to the appellant, was recovered. This had a
serious impact on the complainant's business as he was left with cashflow
issues - he could not buy in other vehicles resulting in less sales stock and
less commission for his sales personnel. The appellant did not tender any
compensation to the complainant.
[6] The substantial delay before the appellant pleaded guilty is another
aggravating factor. In fact, the respondent's counsel is correct when she
argued that there is little mitigation in the appellant's personal
circumstances. Not only did he wait for about 29 months after his arrest, to
plead guilty to both charges but he also had a period of time in which he
could have reflected and reconsidered his position between 13 June 2022,
4
when he made the fraudulent representations to the complainant, and 17
June 2022 when he was paid by the complainant. The situation is
compounded by his immediate transfer of most of the funds to a third party
making recovery of the funds impossible. This constituted money
laundering, which was a separate action committed on a different date.
Thus, the submission that the money laundering arose out of the same facts
as the fraud, are unconvincing. Clearly, the appellant's actions did not
demonstrate any remorse.
[7] The regional magistrate nevertheless showed the appellant some mercy by
directing that 5 of the 10 year sentence imposed in respect of the money
laundering conviction should run concurrently with the sentence imposed in
respect of the fraud conviction.
[8] It is clear from the record that the regional magistrate took note of the Zinn
triad and balanced the three elements: the crime, the offender, and
the interests of society. In our view he ensured proportional, individualized
sentencing by weighing the offences' severity, the appellant's
circumstances, and public interest. We are thus unable to find that the
sentence appealed against was so disturbingly inappropriate, or out of
proportion to the magnitude of the offences, or sufficiently disparate that we
should interfere on appeal.
[9] In conclusion, there is no indication on the record that the regional
magistrate misdirected himself or exercised his discretion in respect of
sentencing unreasonably. In all these circumstances, the appeal must be
dismissed.
5
Order:
[1 0] In the result, I would grant the following order:
[10.1] The appeal is dismissed.
[10.2] The sentence of ten (10) years' direct imprisonment on count 1
(fraud) is confirmed.
(10.3] The sentence of ten (10) years' direct imprisonment on count 2
(contravention of section 4(a) as read with sections 1, 4(i), 4(ii) and
8 of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act 121 of 1998 - money
laundering), of which five (5) years shall run concurrently with the
sentence imposed on count 1 (in terms of section 280(2) of the
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977), is confirmed.
I agree and it is so ordered,
6
't /
/ ANDERSSEN J S
(.__,..,-""
Acting Judge of the High Court
PANGARKERM
Judge of the High Court
Appearances:
For the appellant:
Instructed by:
Adv N Kunju
Legal Aid
Cape Town
For the respondent: Adv T Berry
Instructed by: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Cape Town
7