Malema owes Sars R16-million

McSack said:
... from back in 2008 before the NPA made all eleventy-twelve charges against Zuma just go away
Click to expand...

Are they implying that he could settle with SARS and not pay the taxes owing, while other taxpayers must pay penalties, fines and the outstanding taxes ?
 
What's more worrying to me is that this all feels like someone higher up is trying to silence him. If Juju owes this much, how much are the guys above him stealing from our countries' coffers?
 
blunomore said:
Are they implying that he could settle with SARS and not pay the taxes owing, while other taxpayers must pay penalties, fines and the outstanding taxes ?
Click to expand...
He negotiated with them and came to an agreement. Sometimes SARS makes a decisions to get some money and settle rather than spend a whole lot of additional time and money to recover only a little bit more.
A friend of a friend's, cuzzin's aunty I know got into a spot of bother with SARS a few years ago. After some to-ing and fro-ing they agreed to wave all penalties and fines if said friend settled the outstanding taxes both parties agreed were owed. It was a rather large reduction in the amount initially demanded by SARS I can tell you
 
RoosTa said:
What's more worrying to me is that this all feels like someone higher up is trying to silence him. If Juju owes this much, how much are the guys above him stealing from our countries' coffers?
Click to expand...
I think it is obscene amounts of money. Heard something this morning that the "first family" is involved in something like 140 different companies that "do business" with government
 
McSack said:
He negotiated with them and came to an agreement. Sometimes SARS makes a decisions to get some money and settle rather than spend a whole lot of additional time and money to recover only a little bit more.
Click to expand...

Well in all fairness I do not think there is anything wrong with that. I would do the same.
 
blunomore said:
Well in all fairness I do not think there is anything wrong with that. I would do the same.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I think at the time of all the charges brought against Zuma, outcry over the p1sswilly amount of tax he owed on the "loan" he got from the Shaiks was more hype than anything else.At least he paid. The other charges that just went away were of far more concern IMO.
 
after all that hype and he's only charged with money laundering? That looks fairly minor and suggests a weak case too.
 
Last edited:
R13... said:
after all that hype and he's only charge with money laundering? That looks fairly minor and suggests a weak case too.
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer but this is the most ridiculous charge I have ever heard, if I understand it right. Can a person be found guilty of breaking the law for being a shareholder in a corrupt organisation and receiving dividends from such a company? If that was the case then most shareholders in pyramid schemes would be in jail right now. This looks like a very weak case to me, and I'll be very shocked if it sticks.
 
rza said:
I'm not a lawyer but this is the most ridiculous charge I have ever heard, if I understand it right. Can a person be found guilty of breaking the law for being a shareholder in a corrupt organisation and receiving dividends from such a company? If that was the case then most shareholders in pyramid schemes would be in jail right now. This looks like a very weak case to me, and I'll be very shocked if it sticks.
Click to expand...

Lets first hear the case before we judge:erm:
 
R13... said:
after all that hype and he's only charge with money laundering? That looks fairly minor and suggests a weak case too.
Click to expand...
Yes ridiculous. Fraud and Corruption charges dropped...they are trying to get him on something, anything!
NPA also not ready, case postponed til November...bail only R10 000. Political expediency, pathetic.
 
Last edited:
rza said:
Brilliant article by Pierre De Vos:
http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/malemas-money-laundering-charge-will-it-stick/
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link. Very interesting.

It is therefore not surprising that Malema is not being prosecuted for either fraud or corruption, but only for money laundering in terms of POCA. POCA criminalises activities of any person who acquires, uses, or has possession of, property and who knows or ought reasonably to have known that it is or forms part of the proceeds of unlawful activities of another person.

Property is broadly defined in the Act to include “money or any other movable, immovable, corporeal or incorporeal thing and includes any rights, privileges, claims and securities and any interest therein and all proceeds thereof”. This means that if Malema received shares or other benefits, cash payments or presents which were bought by the proceeds of crime or came from other unlawful activity and if he knew this or ought reasonably to have known it, he would face conviction for money laundering.

It is important to note that section 6 of the Act – in terms of which Malema is being charged – is even broader than might at first be apparrent. This is because it states that one commits a crime if one receives any benefit which is the proceeds of “unlawful activities”. Unlawful activities are not limited to activities which would constitute a criminal offence. This is because the Act defines such activities as “any conduct which constitutes a crime or which contravenes any law whether such conduct occurred before or after the commencement of this Act and whether such conduct occurred in the Republic or elsewhere”.

This means that where one has received money from a rigged tender or even a tender which was not corruptly awarded but was awarded unlawfully in contravention of the relevant legislative provisions, one might still be liable to be convicted for money laundering under section 6 of POCA.

What the state would have to prove to secure a conviction against Malema is therefore that he received, used or possessed money or some other rights or benefits which resulted from unlawful activities – either directly or indirectly – and that he knew or ought reasonably to have known, that these benefits were derived from unlawful activities.

To do so, the state would have to prove one of two things. First, it could prove that Malema in fact knew that the money paid into his Ratanang trust came from unlawful activities. According to the Act the state would be able to prove this by proving that Malema believed that there was a reasonable possibility that the money came from unlawful activities and that he had nevertheless failed to check whether this was so or not. If Malema argues before court that he never bothered to check where the money came from or why people were depositing all this money into his account because he could not be bothered, he would be admitting to one of the elements of the crime.

But even if the state would not be able to prove that Malema in fact knew that the money came from dodgy sources, he would nevertheless face conviction if it could be shown that he reasonably ought to have known or suspected that the money came from an unlawful activity. This will be the case if the state could show that a reasonably diligent and vigilant person having both the general knowledge, skill, training and experience that may reasonably be expected of a person in his or her position as well as the general knowledge, skill, training and experience that he or she in fact has would have suspected that the money paid into his trust came from unlawful activities.

So, it would not be possible for Malema to argue that he never knew where the money came from, that he never checked where it came from and was never concerned about whether the money came from lawful or unlawful sources. In other words, Malema would not be able to plead that while he might have been negligent in not checking, he did not have the intention to commit a crime. This is because in terms of the Act his mere negligence in failing to check where and why money was paid into his Trust would be sufficient to secure a conviction in terms of section 6 of POCA.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X