Trifecta trial ready for sentencing

amounts of the leases were provided to the State, where State witnesses had indicated that it was offered at fair, market-related prices.

“The State is not entitled to seize any assets, as government departments received the full value and lawful services that they paid for through a proper process.”

He stressed that it would be disproportionate to the crime to confiscate Scholtz’s property.

“The purpose of a confiscation order is to prevent a convicted person from benefiting from ill-gotten gains, rather than enriching the State. The accused were acquitted on all fraud charges. Where are the proceeds of the crime?”

Cilliers indicated that should his client’s assets not be seized by the State, it did not imply that Scholtz would go “unpunished”.

“It does not mean that the accused will get off.

“There is no suggestion in the court findings that the amount in any of the agreements was increased because of the corrupt relationship.

“Mr White, under oath, agreed to an alternative sum of R500 million since he accepted that the defendants did not have R759 million worth of assets.”

He added that the six leases under question only amounted to R200 million as the balance included the R500 million of additional leases that were concluded with Trifecta and State departments, that did not form part of the evidence before the court.

“Therefore the net profit received from the relevant lease agreements is R6 million.”

Cilliers argued that the capital gains were not relevant to the confiscation order.

He pointed out that the accused were in no way to blame for any of the delays in the trial, which spanned over a period of four years.

“All parties did their utmost to save time in reaching an agreement in the confiscation application. The only delay was caused by the illness of the late Yolanda Botha, a co-accused.”

Judge Mmathebe Phatshoane yesterday reserved judgment on the confiscation order and instructed counsel to proceed with arguments in mitigation of sentencing today.

She expressed frustration that, almost a year after the accused were convicted, the court was no closer to finalising the matter.

Senior State Advocate Peter Serunye added that the prosecution was ready to proceed with sentencing procedures.

“The parties have agreed to a settlement amount pertaining to the confiscation order. As much as the accused are entitled to a fair trial, they also have a right to have the matter finalised. Further delays may pose an injustice for the accused.”