THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
| Jacquesson v Minister of Finance | |
|
|
|
| Supreme Court of Appeal -548/05 | Hearing date: 4 November 2005 |
| Judgment date: 16 November 2005 | |
Condictio sine causa – moneys declared forfeit to the State: on the facts, not affected by the grant of amnesty in terms of s 20(1) of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act 34 of 1995. |
|
Media Summary
of Judgment |
|
FROM The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal DATE 15 November 2005
Please note that the media summary is for the benefit of the media and does not form part of the judgment.
CASE MAURICE ALPHONSE JACQUESSON v MINISTER OF FINANCE On 16 November 2005 the SCA dismissed an appeal by Maurice Alphonse Jacquesson against a finding by the Pretoria High Court that he was not entitled by virtue of the amnesty granted to him on 10 May 2001 in terms of s 20(1) of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act to repayment from the respondent, the Minister of Finance, of certain funds that were declared forfeit to the State on 4 March 1994 in terms of Regulation 24(b) of the Exchange Control Regulations. The appellant was the sole proprietor of Jacques Film Distributors ('JFD'), which was party to a series of systematic frauds, which according to the Reserve Bank resulted in R103 260 560 leaving the country illegally. The appellant was indicted in the then Durban Supreme Court and convicted on a total of 1 058 counts of fraud on 17 September 1992. On 26 January 1988, four days after the appellant's arrest, the deputy governor of the South African Reserve Bank ordered attachment of all funds standing to the credit of JFD. On 1 March 1994, those funds which at that stage together with interest totalled R2 861 651 was declared forfeit to the State. On 10 May 2001 the appellant was granted amnesty by the amnesty committee of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Following upon the grant of amnesty, the appellant launched an application in the Pretoria High Court for return of those funds. The application was dismissed. He then appealed to the SCA. The SCA held that the appellant's convictions for fraud related to moneys that had already left the country and that the grant of amnesty was wholly irrelevant to the funds that had been attached and were declared forfeit to the State. Further, in any event, the terms of the amnesty granted, in the view of the SCA, did not extend to those funds that had been declared forfeit.
|
|