This week, our story takes place at the High Court of South Africa, Northern Cape Division in Kimberley, in 2023. We have Ms Natasha Liebenberg, who was employed by the Red Bank from 1992 in the Administration of Deceased Estates Department.
In September 2011, the Red Bank’s Forensic Investigator received allegations against Ms Natasha. It was alleged that, during her employment, Ms Natasha fraudulently completed cash withdrawal slips and she withdrew funds in the names of various beneficiaries. Ms Natasha committed these fraudulent activities from 2008 to 2011.
The Red Bank proceeded with a disciplinary hearing against Ms Natasha. She was accused of “269 charges of fraud, forgery, uttering and theft.” Haibo!
During the period of Ms Natasha’s trial, the Court conducted a trial-within-a-trial (a process that occurs within a larger trial) and admitted into evidence the statements that she made during her disciplinary conducted by the Red Bank.
In November 2018, Ms Natasha changed her initial plea of NOT GUILTY to a plea of GUILTY and signed a statement in terms of section 220 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (CPA).
In her section 220 statement, Ms Natasha confirmed that she understood all the charges preferred against her, namely that she unlawfully forged signatures of beneficiaries’ with the intent to defraud the Red Bank and withdrew funds without following proper procedures.
What did the Court convict Ms Natasha of ? 86 counts of fraud, 84 counts of forgery, 84 counts of uttering and 10 counts of theft. She was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment in respect of all counts.
Ms Natasha appealed to the High Court on the grounds that the court’s decision was based on inadmissible evidence, which infringed her constitutional right to a fair trial and that the sentence imposed was not in accordance with basic fairness and justice.
In September 2021 her appeal succeeded in part. The Court held that there was a duplication of charges and that Ms Natasha should not have been convicted on both the forgery and uttering counts. As a result, Ms Natasha got her sentence reduced to 4 years imprisonment.
Regarding the admissibility of the evidence, the Court held that there was no infringement on Ms Natasha’s constitutional rights. Her conviction was based on her section 220 statement, she was afforded legal representation in her disciplinary proceedings, and she was warned that any written statements could be used as evidence against her.
Unfortunately for Ms Natasha, the Constitutional Court dismissed her appeal.
DISCLAIMER! This content is for educational and informational purposes based on publicly available information.
Source: SAFLII