SA’S BANKING DOUBLE STANDARDS
OVER the past two years, South Africa has been a corporate crime scene where at least three major conglomerates have openly admitted to being involved in acts of corruption (accounting irregularities) and other commercial criminal acts.
It has also turned into a cesspool of unaccountability and blame-shifting.
The most astonishing hypocrisy in our democracy to date has to be the blind-eye that the banking sector has turned towards the corruption committed by the likes of technology giant EOH, Steinhoff International and sugar producer Tongaat Hulett.
A report by ENSafrica on EOH found widespread corruption by EOH officials in some municipalities and a host of government departments.
The report also found that the company and its subsidiaries had obtained several lucrative contracts, spanning years, in a number of government departments through illicit means.
Steinhoff wiped close to R45 billion of pensioners’ monies off the markets when its chief executive, Markus Jooste, was implicated in fraud, corruption and “accounting irregularities”, resulting in criminal charges.
Not to be outdone, the 127-yearold Tongaat Hulett, in June, was suspended on the JSE and in London after it was established that it had overstated its financials and had also engaged in a series of “accounting irregularities”.
When it comes to big corporates in SA that have major financial muscle, there seems to be a different set of rules as opposed to those on the other side of the spectrum. How different are the likes of EOH, Steinhoff and Tongaat Hulett from the Guptas and their empire, largely associated with corruption and state capture?
Those implicated in state capture or deemed politically exposed were dumped by the banking sector in SA, yet, the likes of EOH, that has admitted to massive fraud with government departments are still operating and the banks have not initiated any sanctions.
The Guptas have been central to the state capture narrative but so far have not been arrested, extradited, tried or convicted.
Is there a different set of rules for different players where racial factors are critical when deciding on action?
EOH is reportedly criminally charging its executives yet banks have allowed them to function and their sponsors in the markets continue to operate with them. Why are authorities turning a blind eye?
In South Africa, black businessmen or executives are refused bank accounts, corporate bailouts and business loans purely on the grounds of being politically exposed. A case in point is how Nedbank tried to shut down the accounts of Arthur Fraser.
The former State Security Agency director-general accused Nedbank of targeting him and his family. The bank served Fraser with a notice last week that it intended to close his accounts on May 22 for alleged reputational risk after his name was mentioned in a book published in 2017.
However, the likes of former Steinhoff boss Markus Jooste continue to roam the streets freely, with their monies and bank accounts all intact.. The Competition Commission, Equality Court and the Human Rights Commission should play a greater role to expose the banking sector’s racial bias.
“Are racial factors critical when deciding on action?