30.12.2014 Views

Khasho November December 2011 - National Prosecuting Authority

Khasho November December 2011 - National Prosecuting Authority

Khasho November December 2011 - National Prosecuting Authority

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

NPA PERFORMANCE<br />

SUCCESSES: AFU CAPE TOWN<br />

REGIONAL OFFICE<br />

Rudolph Masternbroeke<br />

Mr Willie Hofmeyer: Head AFU<br />

The Cape Town regional office of the Asset Forfeiture<br />

Unit is one of five regional offices in the country. Despite<br />

numerous challenges over the last year, specifically relating<br />

to staff movement and appointments, the office has had a number<br />

of significant successes of which it is very proud.<br />

On the training front, there has been a number of training sessions<br />

for prosecutors to familiarise them with asset forfeiture law and<br />

as a consequence there has been a significant increase in referrals<br />

as well as a significant number of confiscation orders obtained.<br />

During the course of the year, a total of 15 confiscation orders<br />

were obtained to the value of R1 943 322.50.<br />

Important judgments obtained during <strong>2011</strong> are as follows:<br />

Falk and Another v NDPP [<strong>2011</strong>] ZACC 26 CCT 95-10 where<br />

the Constitutional Court dealt with the interaction between the<br />

Prevention of Organised Crime Act (POCA) and the International<br />

Co-operation in Criminal Matters Act (ICCMA), as they relate to<br />

registered foreign restraint orders. Though foreign restraint<br />

orders are registered in South Africa in terms of ICCMA, the<br />

provisions of POCA may be used to broaden the ambit of the<br />

foreign restraint orders.<br />

NDPP v Gardener <strong>2011</strong> (1) SACR 612 SCA, where the SCA<br />

confirmed that confiscation and sentencing are separate<br />

proceedings and a court must not take into account the sentence<br />

it had imposed in considering whether to grant a confiscation<br />

order. This judgment also deals authoritatively with the issue<br />

of calculation of a benefit.<br />

NDPP v Van der Merwe <strong>2011</strong> (2) SACR 188 WCC, where<br />

for the first time, a full bench of the high court dealt with the<br />

incidence of onus pertaining to the so-called innocent owner<br />

defence in forfeiture proceedings confirmed that applicants<br />

who apply to have their interest in property excluded in<br />

terms of section 52 of POCA bear the onus to satisfy the<br />

court that the requirements of section 52 are satisfied.<br />

PROFESSIONALISM, INTEGRITY, SERVICE EXCELLENCE, ACCOUNTABILITY AND CREDIBILITY<br />

5

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!