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

2. 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

3. 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%

4. 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)

5. 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

6. 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%

7. 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)

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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