Sibling cut some slack

Blood turned out not to be thicker than water when a Pretoria businessman recruited his attorney brother to help him drum up capital for a “lucrative investment opportunity” which, in the end, was nothing more than a pyramid scheme.

In 2015, Roche and Marinus Horn were both found guilty of having fleeced investors in the scheme – originally punted as a partnership between Roche’s company, Jean Roche Liquor, and Red Bull – out of R1.5 million.

They were convicted of racketeering, money laundering, fraud and theft. Roche was sentenced to 15 years in prison and Marinus got 10 years.

But while Roche has since died, Marinus last week had a number of his convictions overturned on appeal. He also had his prison sentence slashed down to six years.

In court, Marinus argued he was in fact a victim and had – like the investors he helped onboard – been duped by his “consummate conman” brother.

The case dates back to 2000, when Red Bull was just entering the local market. On Marinus’ version, his brother wanted to go into business with the global energy drink franchise. He, however, needed help securing bridging capital and so approached Marinus who facilitated the investments through his firm’s trust account.

But then the Red Bull deal apparently fell through and the investors were left high and dry.

“The business had no bank account – itself a serious warning note. For reasons that should have been obvious to the even semi-vigilant, Roche’s business ran at a significant loss from the very start – despite Roche’s claims and promises,” Judge Murray Lowe, sitting in the Eastern Cape High Court, pointed out last week in ruling on the appeal.

“Many lenders received some payment of interest, but eventually all but three effectively lost their money in total... It was correctly conceded in argument for [Marinus] that this was no more nor less than a ‘pyramid scheme’ for ‘much of the time that this business subsisted’.”

In court, Marinus maintained he had been “totally deceived” by his brother.

“What is overlooked however is that [Marinus] was an experienced attorney and had a duty to critically analyse what he was told,” the judge said.

He said there was “no doubt” that Marinus had benefited.

“There can be no other explanation for [Marinus] not informing investors, both existing and future, of the failure of Red Bull than that he was protecting Roche and himself, at the investors’ expense,” he added.

Lowe found, however, that the state had not established beyond a reasonable doubt that Marinus knew what was going on.

As a result, his sentence was also decreased.