- The charge sheet details out how the R2.2 billion theft was perpetrated, and the attempts to hide it.
- Arrests on Wednesday flowed from the case opened by the South African Reserve Bank in 2018.
- Seven of the eight men appeared in court on Thursday, while former CFO Philip Truter is in quarantine due to Covid-19.
The 81-page charge sheet detailing 47 counts of fraud, theft, money laundering, corruption and racketeering has set out in devastating detail allegations of how the first eight men arrested on Wednesday stole R2.2 billion from VBS Mutual Bank and how they tried to cover it up.
Those arrested include former VBS and Vele Investments chairperson Tshifhiwa Matodzi, the alleged “kingpin” of the heist.
The others are Andile Ramavhunga, former VBS chief executive officer, Phophi Mukhodobwane, former VBS general manager for treasury, and former VBS chief financial officer, Philip Truter.
Truter did not appear in court with his co-accused on Thursday as he is in quarantine due to Covid-19.
The others are Sipho Malaba, the KPMG engagement partner responsible for the audits of VBS, and three non-executive directors, Ernest Nesane, Paul Magula and Phalaphala Ramikosi.
ALSO READ | VBS ‘heist’ accused plead not guilty to racketeering, fraud, corruption and money laundering
Nesane and Magula were seconded to the VBS board by the Public Investment Corporation (PIC), which held considerable investments in VBS.
Ramikosi, the former chief financial officer of the SAPS, was the chairperson of the VBS audit and risk committee.
All eight men, in addition to being charged with the theft and cover up of VBS funds, were handsomely rewarded for their alleged complicity.
“At all times relevant to the indictment, accused 1 to 8 were associated in fact and thus formed an enterprise…the accused amongst others made use of the following legally registered entities to wit VBS Mutual Bank, Vele Investments, Vele Petroport Holdings, Venmont Holdings and Robvet to provide continuity of structure for the unlawful activities of the enterprise,” the charge sheet reads in support of the State’s allegation of racketeering.
It reads:
Members of the enterprise gained overall control of the financial systems of VBS. The primary purpose of the enterprise was to enrich the members and associates through the theft of money from the general pool of funds in VBS.
“The theft of the money was covered up through various acts of fraud and money laundering. Members of the enterprise also received and made corrupt payments as indicative of their and/or other persons, known and unknown to the State, participation in the theft, or at the very least, in the acts of fraud that covered up the theft,” the charge sheet reads.
The overarching charge by the State is that 41 of the 47 counts sets out a “pattern of racketeering activities” in that the men acted individually or together, committing acts of racketeering in the conduct of the enterprise.
FIRST TAKE | Hawks, NPA should be praised for VBS arrests. Now comes their biggest challenge
The specific offences outlined in counts 6 to 47 deal with alleged contraventions of the Prevention of Corrupt Activities act, theft in terms of common law, fraud, money laundering and corruption in that:
Counts 6 to 16 – Theft
Matodzi, Ramavhunga, Truter and Mukhodobwane (accused 1 to 4) created fictitious credits in accounts held by nearly 40 companies totalling R2.2 billion that was siphoned out of VBS bank, through numerous accounts, between April 2016 and March 2018.
The largest “beneficiary” of the theft was Vele Investments – an entity also controlled by Matodzi, through which numerous companies were acquired.
Count 17
Nesane, Magula, Ramikosi and Malaba are accused of theft in that “at all relevant times they were entrusted with the oversight of the system of internal financial control of VBS” and that they were party to the theft of R2.2 billion.
ALSO READ | VBS gang finally goes down – what you need to know
Count 18 to 24 – Fraud
The state alleges fraud against the men for signing off on the financial statements dated 31 March 2017 during that year, knowing full well they did not represent the true picture of VBS’ financial affairs.
There are numerous counts dealing with specifically, the signing off of the director’s statement of responsibility, the audit committee report and the regulatory filings filed with the Prudential Authority (previously the Registrar of Banks).
Count 25 to 40 – Corruption, in terms of the contravention of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act (Precca)
The counts deal with the amounts paid to each of the accused, allegedly in exchange for them remaining silent and complicit in the theft. Matodzi is individually charged with an offence for each amount paid to his co-accused, while the others are charged with contravention of Precca for accepting the payments.
The charge sheet shows the following:
- Accused 1, Matodzi – no amount is mentioned, but it is made clear he authorised and caused payments to be made to the other accused. The Great Bank Heist report by advocate Terry Motau sets out that Matodzi himself took upwards of R300 million.
- Accused 2, Ramavhunga was paid R23.4 million between 9 February 2016 and 2 February 2018.
- Accused 3, Truter was paid R2 million between 20 November 2017 and 15 December 2017. He was promised more than R5 million, which he accepted.
- Accused 4, Mukhodobwane was paid R17 million between 30 March 2017 and 5 October 2017.
- Accused 5, Malaba was paid more than R30 million between 18 April 2016 and 14 September 2017.
- Accused 6, Ramikosi, received roughly R750 000.
- Accused 7, Nesane was paid R7.4 million between 1 March 2016 and 2 February 2018.
- Accused 8, Magula was paid R7 million between 25 August 2016 and 2 February 2018.
Count 41 to 47 – Money Laundering in contravention of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act
Accused 2 to 8 are each charged with money laundering for the manner in which the payments were made to them as set out in counts 25 to 40.
The payments were made to companies, the majority of which had “nominee” directors that created the impression the funds were not for their benefit. These companies were shown in Motau’s report to have been fronts only, intended to disguise the payments.