Seizing Criminal Assets to Fight Crime Asset Forfeiture Unit National Prosecuting Authority Report to Parliament Feb 2008

Overall objectives 1: Increase the volume of cases to build the capacity to do more cases to make a real impact in the fight against crime 2: Developing the law to do test cases and create legal precedents that allow the effective use of the law

1: Increasing the volume of cases 2005 / 2006 2006 / 2007 Indicator Target: Actual: % of target   Actual Number of cases Seizures 210 252 120% 230 253 110% Cases completed 160 221 138% 180 243 135% Monetary targets R 250m R 345m R300m R 1 297m 432% R 100m R 107m 107% R120m R101m 84% Funds into CARA R 50m R 20m 40% R25m R 19m 77%

Notes on volume and value of cases New seizures No. of cases: 10% above target Value of cases: 4.3 times of annual target David King – largest case ever - R1bn frozen Delport – customs fraud of R350m Completed cases No. of cases: 35% above target Value of cases: 15% below target CARA 23% below target Some big deposits delayed to current year (Shaik R44m)

CARA first payments First CARA payouts made this year Was an important development Most of funds to fight crime But also to help organisations that assist victims DSD – 8 rape crisis and battered woman centres SAPS – one way glass for ID parades TRC victims SOCA – specialised equipment

2: Developing the law 2005 / 2006 2006 / 2007 Indicator Target Actual % of target   Target: Total Judgements 45 38 84% 36 33 92% Judgements: Con Court 1 3 Supreme Court Appeal 4 Success rate 67% 72% +5% 81% 14% Success rate: CC/SCA 75% 80% 71% -4% Judgements to date Success rate to date All judgements 205 Constitutional Court 6 83% 19 63%

Note on judgements Success rate of more than 85% in all cases Also measure success rate in cases where judgments are obtained In 4 years to April 2003 won only 48% of judgments (25 of 52) Big change in last 4 years in judgements won 73.4% of judgements (111 of 152)

Important judgements Constitutional Court Prophet drug house - appeal refused. Clarify instrumentality forfeitures Absa vs Fraser – legal expenses cannot be granted to accused at the expense of creditors or victims without hearing them Mohunram – illegal casino instrumentality Lost narrowly 6 vs 5 Majority appear to require organised crime link

Important judgements Supreme Court of Appeal Shaik – held that AFU can take gross benefit – not only the profit. Clarify confiscation procedure Van Staden – drunk driving cars are instrumentalities Mngomezulu – drug dealer – curator can sell off property to pay expenses of the estate Van Rensburg –lost on technical point

Partners relations Generally relations are excellent SAPS (incl SCCU) about 90% of cases, 30% value Have SAPS task teams in most AFU offices DSO – about 8 % of cases, 67% value SARS – Delport case NPS – ensure that get more referrals Working on new organised crime initiative Others: SARB, FIC, MCM

Challenges Major challenge to expand its capacity sufficiently to deal with all the cases that are currently in court and where asset forfeiture can be done Estimate is about R1 to R2 billion, apart from other proceeds that can be targeted through civil forfeiture Prepared a business case to expand capacity sufficiently to deal with this over 5 years Requires expanding the budget almost eight -fold Budget has increased significant additional funding