No ‘slap on the wrist’ in Trifecta

“The Financial Intelligence Centre Act (Fica) has red-flagged my client and has prevented him from conducting his business both nationally and abroad.”

Van Zyl stated that Scholtz was the only person with the knowledge and management skills to keep his businesses afloat.

“These entities will collapse, should he be incarcerated. The confiscation order would have a direct effect on Scholtz, who has a majority shareholding in some of the other companies.”

He requested the court not to “ruin the remainder” of Scholtz’s life by condemning him to a prison cell, as he was 56 years old.

Van Zyl said that his client was neither the instigator of the said leases, nor had he influenced anyone in approving the rental agreements.

“His conduct was limited to his interactions with the late co-director of Trifecta, Sarel Breda, who had identified previously disadvantaged beneficiaries for his trust and introduced him to the late Yolanda Botha, who was the former HOD for the Department of Social Development.

“Breda had a relationship with Block and Botha, where Scholtz came onto the scene at a later stage. Scholtz did not know Block or the identities of the trust beneficiaries and did not reside in Kimberley. He only became involved when he arranged that ten percent of shares in the company be transferred to the Jyba Trust. He only met Botha in 2007.”

Van Zyl added that the renovations to Botha’s home in Jawno Street, Monument Heights, only started after she had resigned as HOD of the Department of Social Development.

“Scholtz was only aware of a R338 000 payment that was made from the Casee trust that was authorised by him to Duncan and Rothman in respect of legal fees to assist Block, upon the request of Breda. He had no knowledge of the payments towards the renovations of Block’s guest house in Upington.”

He stated that Breda had secured the Trifecta lease agreements, negotiated with state officials and introduced Botha and Block to his client.

“Breda was responsible for the day-to-day affairs and represented the company at all relevant times, until his death in 2009. The company, Scholtz and external shareholders must now suffer the consequences, due to his conduct.”

Van Zyl added that Scholtz had started up the business venture in the Northern Cape to uplift previously disadvantaged persons.

“Since the death of his first wife, he has contributed massively towards stem cell research. He employs 130 people, including contractors who are involved in the maintenance and administration of the buildings.”

He indicated that Scholtz was liable to pay R14.4 million, including interest, to the liquidators and South African Revenue Service.

“In essence, he will have to pay R85 million in the name of the company, should the confiscation order of R60 million be implemented. Creditors and third parties will have to be paid out their shares through the sale of the fixed assets.

“My client was lured into the situation and had limited involvement. In effect, only a R6 million profit was made and this will act as a deterrent against anyone repeating such an offence.”

Van Zyl added that should his client be granted correctional supervision, he was willing to assist non-profit organisations and the underprivileged and would train people in business. “He has made a meaningful contribution to society.”

Senior State Advocate Peter Serunye maintained that there were no substantial or compelling factors to convince the court to deviate from the prescribed minimum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment for each of the accused.