A thread on why some arrested in the #VBS case admitted guilt before adv #Terry#Motau and Werksmans, but told the court today they will plead “not guilty”,
and why the amounts on the indictment is different from the amounts they actually received.
The short answer to this discrepancy: An attempt to evade jail time, as is their right.
The long answer has to do with S140 of the Financial Sector Regulation Act. Shortly, a person may object to answering q's or to produce evidence on grounds that the answer or info may incriminate them.
When they object, the official conducting the investigation (Motau) may grant an indemnity. This incriminating answer or document is then not admissible in evidence against this person in criminal proceedings.
In colloquial terms, the attorneys say this is a “use indemnity”. The big "but" is that the state can collate all the evidence independently from Motau's procedure, prove guilt and present that in their criminal case.
That means the state will have to prove their case before an independent judge, and if they don't, people who pleaded guilty before adv #Motau may be found not guilty by the court.
A different court has however already pronounced on most of the #VBS 8 in sequestration and liquidation procedures where the bar for guilt and having to pay back the money is quite high.
The indictment further accuses #VBS 8 of less money stolen than Motau showed they actually received. That is because Motau collated & reported loans, vehicle facilities, mortgage bonds, overdraft facilities and cash payments.
#PhilipTruter, for example, received R5,8m in banking facilities, but is indicted for only R2m.
#PhophiMukhodobwane received over R30m, said Motau, but is indicted for R17,1m.
That is because a) some of the banking facilities were paid back
b) the state cherry picks those instances where they feel they can win. NPA doesn't accuse them of literally everything #VBS 8 have done wrong, only those instances they are confident of proving in court