Criminal Law / Crime – KRUGER & CO

Sep 25

0

Don’t Let Cybercriminals Haunt You this Halloween — Verify, Verify, Verify!

By Kruger & Co | Business, Criminal Law / Crime, General Interest, Property

“If you suspect deceit, hit delete!” (Online cybersecurity slogan)

October is Cybersecurity Awareness Month, a good time to note that as cybercrime continues to grow, more and more businesses and individuals are falling victim to the dreaded “BEC” or “Business Email Compromise” fraud.

The million-dollar question: Who takes the hit?

Typically in a BEC fraud, email or other electronic communications between a creditor and debtor (often a seller and buyer, or service provider and client) are hacked by criminals, who con the debtor into paying what they owe into the fraudster’s bank account. By the time the parties realise they’ve been had, the criminals are long gone, and all that remains is the million-dollar (sometimes quite literally!) question: “Which one of us takes the hit?”

Until now we have been faced with conflicting High Court decisions on this point, but now the SCA (Supreme Court of Appeal) has settled it: The risk is the debtor’s.

A car dealership must pay twice over

It was a classic case of BEC: A dealership bought two Hyundai Nissan NP200 vehicles from another dealership for R145,000 each. The seller issued invoices showing its banking details. The buyer paid by EFT and sent proof of payment to the seller, which happily (without checking that the funds had actually landed in its account) delivered the vehicles to the buyer.

As always with these cases, one can imagine the sinking feeling that greeted the parties’ realisation that the seller’s emails and the attached invoices had been intercepted, and the banking details subtly altered. As a result, the buyer had paid the full R290,000 to the criminals’ bank account.

Long story short, a real seesaw of a legal battle ensued. The buyer said, “I’ve already paid you”. The seller retorted, “No you haven’t, you paid the criminals,” and sued the buyer for the R290k. The seller won in the Regional Court, lost on appeal to the High Court, but then turned the tables again and celebrated victory in a further appeal to the SCA.

Verify, verify, verify

The SCA’s findings amount to this:

The onus is always on you as buyer to prove, on a balance of probabilities (i.e. more likely than not), that you have paid the seller.
When you pay by EFT, you must show that the seller actually got the money. In other words, that you paid into the correct bank account.
Creditors (recipients) have no legal duty to protect debtors (payers) from the possibility of their accounts being hacked where the debtor could have taken steps to protect itself but failed to do so.
The obligation therefore is on you as debtor to ensure that the bank account details in the invoice are in fact correct and verified because “it is the debtor’s duty to seek out his creditor”. Fail to follow basic verification steps, and your payment to the wrong account does not remove your liability to pay the debt — you still have to pay your creditor.

Bottom line, the buyer in this case should have verified the banking details given in the emailed invoices before paying. It didn’t, so it couldn’t prove that it had paid into an account authorised by the seller.

It must pay the seller the R290k, with interest and doubtless substantial legal costs.

Don’t make the same mistake

These scams grow more sophisticated by the day, fuelled now by AI-perfected deep fakes, cloned websites and social engineering. Treat all emails, all electronic messages, and all electronic invoices with great suspicion — even if they appear to come from businesses you have known and trusted for decades. Verify bank account details (preferably by speaking to the creditor directly on a number you know to be correct) before paying a cent.

Property sales are particularly vulnerable

Be especially vigilant when buying or selling property because these high-value sales are a particular focus for cybercriminals worldwide. There are rich pickings in the offing, and the opportunities for baddies to intercept and falsify emails is multiplied by the range of trusted role players involved — typically several sets of attorneys, estate agents, and banks as well as the buyers and sellers themselves.

A final note on online security

Let’s end off with a note to everyone: Keep reminding your whole team (not just your accounts department) that securing your computer and email systems against bad-actor compromise is no longer a nice-to-have, it’s essential. This whole unhappy saga could all have been avoided if everyone involved had followed basic security protocols. Prevention is always better than cure.

Give us a call if you need any help.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact us for specific and detailed advice.

Jun 25

0

Private Prosecution: Neighbours at War

By Kruger & Co | Criminal Law / Crime, General Interest, Property

“I charge you by the law.” (William Shakespeare in The Merchant of Venice)

Victims of crime are entitled to see the perpetrators brought to justice. Feeling that the justice system has failed you can cause significant psychological harm and feelings of victimisation.

So, what happens if you believe that you are the victim of a crime, which you duly report to the police – only to be told that the NPA (National Prosecuting Authority) has declined to prosecute?

You could of course console yourself with the thought that “well, at least I tried” and walk away unfazed. But if you feel strongly enough about it, you are not without legal remedy – in appropriate cases you could be advised to go the private prosecution route.

A significant SCA (Supreme Court of Appeal) judgment last year provides an excellent example of just such a case.

Neighbours at war in an upmarket suburb

The scene here is Kloof Road in Cape Town’s Bantry Bay, renowned for its prime location on the Atlantic Seaboard, luxurious houses, and panoramic sea views.

The protagonists are next-door neighbours, whose acrimonious relationship and long history of disputes was founded in the one owner’s renovations, and the other’s strenuous objections to them. Who will eventually win that particular battle remains for another court to determine, but in the course of these disputes the one owner, a senior attorney, accessed his neighbour’s confidential credit records using a colleague’s login details.

This tactic backfired when the neighbour laid criminal charges against her adversary, saying that he had unlawfully and covertly accessed her personal and private information without the required authority or consent. She later added charges of fraud and defeating or obstructing the administration of justice, alleging that during the consequent investigation he had variously and falsely claimed firstly to have not accessed her data, then to have had her consent, then to have acted as her attorney, and lastly to have accessed her records inadvertently.

The media’s reporting of this high-profile spat created what the Court later described as a “public spectacle”, and the trial courts will have to wade through a web of hotly-contested and conflicting evidence in their search for the truth.

But for now, our interest lies in the fact that the NPA declined to prosecute on any of these charges. Undeterred, the neighbour initiated a private prosecution, a move hotly contested by her opponent all the way up to the SCA.

What must you prove to launch a private prosecution?

The SCA, in ultimately allowing the neighbour to proceed, set out our law on the matter.

The starting point is always the NPA issuing a certificate nolle prosequi (a fancy Latin term meaning simply that the State declines to prosecute), for it is that certificate which opens the door to you to have a go at it yourself. As a side note here, legislation specific to the SPCA, SARS and a few other specialised entities allows them to prosecute specified matters without a nolle prosequi certificate – but the rest of us need one.

Once you’ve got your nolle prosequi certificate you must prove that:

You have an interest in the issue of the trial.
Your interest is substantial and peculiar to you.
Your interest arises from some injury individually suffered by you.
Your injury was suffered as a consequence of the commission of the alleged offence.

In deciding whether or not to grant your application, the court will also consider whether private prosecution would offend public policy. If you are shown to be acting maliciously, vindictively, vexatiously, or without foundation, your application will fail.

Essentially, the Court performs a balancing act between your right to have your dispute “resolved by application of the law and decided in a fair public hearing before a court”, and the accused person’s “right not to be subjected to unfounded and vexatious private prosecution.”

In this case, the Court allowed the private prosecution to continue, commenting that the accused would now have the opportunity to vindicate his innocence at trial.

Think before you leap

Before you charge blithely down this route, bear in mind that private prosecution carries, in the Court’s words, “enormous financial risk”. So be very confident of your prospects of success and bear in mind that:

Even if you win it’s a costly exercise, because you are now paying your own legal team and a private prosecutor out of your own pocket rather than relying on state officials to do the job for you.
If you lose and the trial court finds your prosecution to be unfounded and vexatious (a real risk after the NPA declined to proceed), you risk punitive costs and compensatory orders. If the accused can prove you acted without reasonable cause and with malice, you could also be liable for damages in a separate civil claim for malicious prosecution.

Considering a private prosecution? We’ll help you weigh up the pros and cons.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact us for specific and detailed advice.

Mar 26

0

Verify Banking Details Before Paying Any Invoice – You’re at Risk, Not the Creditor

By Kruger & Co | Business, Criminal Law / Crime, General Interest

“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” (Benjamin Franklin’s warning to fire-threatened Philadelphians in 1736)

Cases of Business Email Compromise (BEC) fraud continue to surge, and recent High Court decisions have confirmed that it’s up to you to verify that you are paying into the correct bank account.

How does BEC work and who is at risk?

BEC fraud involves cybercriminals impersonating your trusted contacts (e.g. suppliers and professional advisors) in fraudulent emails that look genuine. The idea is to trick you into making payment into the scammer’s account.

Everyone’s at risk, but BEC is particularly rife in transactions where large amounts of money are in play. Favourite targets are commercial operations and their customers, as well as all role-players in property sales – buyers, sellers, conveyancers and estate agents.

How do these scams work? For a snapshot of a classic BEC sting, have a look at this recent High Court case…

“But I paid you the R890k!”

Two Cape Town companies, who had been trading happily and successfully with each other for seven years, fell out over who should bear a loss of R886,726.25 after scammers stole the customer’s payment for a consignment of valves. Here’s how it went down:

The customer had always made payments to the supplier’s Standard Bank account in the past. So far, so good.
But then, enter stage left, our villain: Joe Scammer. Joe intercepts the supplier’s email correspondence and, pretending to be the supplier’s managing director, asks the customer to make all payments to an Absa bank account from now on.
The customer asks for a bank confirmation letter, which Joe (still in his guise as MD) gladly supplies.
Reassured, the customer makes payment to the Absa account. The fraud is only discovered when, three days later, the supplier emails asking for payment.
Joe is of course now long gone with his loot, leaving customer and supplier to fight it out over who must bear the loss.

Blaming the supplier won’t work – you must “seek out” your creditor

The customer, sued by the supplier for the outstanding amount, contended that the blame lay with the supplier, whose own negligence in failing to secure its IT systems against email interception caused the fraud.

That’s a defence often raised by BEC victims, and indeed our courts have stressed in the past the need for suppliers and professionals to ensure that their own computer systems are properly secured at all times. But it cut no ice in this case.

Rather, said the Court, (emphasis supplied), “it is the debtor’s obligation to ‘seek out his creditor’ and … until payment is duly effected, the debtor carries the risk that the payment may be misappropriated or mislaid.”

The real cause of the loss in this case, held the Court, was not any hacking of the supplier’s emails (if there was in fact a hack – the supplier denied it), but the customer’s failure to take the steps that a “prudent debtor” would have taken to ensure that it was paying into the correct account.

Our unfortunate customer must now pay the supplier, plus a raft of legal costs to boot.

Pick up the phone!

Our courts will have no sympathy for you if you fall victim by not protecting yourself. A factor that counted against our customer here was (emphasis supplied): “the fact, known to any persons in business and making use of computer-based methods of communication and payment, that cyber crime is rampant and that care must be taken at all times to limit its impact.”

The good news is that a few simple preventative measures can provide everyone involved with a strong layer of protection:

Put in place strong policies and procedures to ensure that your IT systems and emails are secured against breach and interception.
You, and all of your staff, must remain constantly vigilant against the techniques which the scammers use. They are particularly adept at exploiting trust-based and long-standing relationships, for instance with suppliers you have dealt with for years, and professionals like attorneys, accountants and financial advisors etc.
Most importantly, perhaps, given the current attitude of our courts, is to always verify payment details via contact with your creditor through another communication system. As our courts have pointed out, “a simple telephone call” can be enough to avoid falling victim to fraud.

If you need help reviewing your fraud prevention and payment verification procedures, please feel free to contact us.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact us for specific and detailed advice.

Oct 28

0

No Means No: What the New Case on Consent Means for Victims of Sexual Violence

By Kruger & Co | Criminal Law / Crime, General Interest

“Sexual violence is a horrific reality that continues to plague this country.” (Quoted in judgment below)

It’s often said that victims of rape and other types of sexual violence have to suffer twice – firstly at the hands of the rapist and secondly at the hands of the law.

A recent High Court ruling on the knotty question of consent could go some way towards remedying this. At the heart of the matter is the delicate balance between a victim’s right to be treated with dignity and compassion in their quest for justice, and the accused’s right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a fair trial.

The consent conundrum

To secure a conviction of sexual violence the State must prove – beyond reasonable doubt – the absence of consent to the accused person’s actions. Unfortunately, major injustices have resulted in the past from the fact that many perpetrators escaped conviction by simply claiming that they believed that consent had in fact been given – without having to show that their belief was in any way reasonable.

Two shocking acquittals

The Court referred to two practical examples of grave injustice rooted in the current wording of the Criminal Laws (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act:

A woman had agreed to oral sex only, but her then-boyfriend proceeded to perform full penetrative sex. He claimed that her body language gave tacit consent to penetration and that he misconstrued her request to him to stop as a request to pause momentarily. He was acquitted on the basis that his version was “reasonable and possibly true, although his explanation was improbable”. The complainant had not objectively consented, but the State had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that his version that he genuinely believed that there was at least tacit consent, was false. The court considered itself bound to acquit “unless it is satisfied not only that the explanation is improbable but that beyond any reasonable doubt it is false.”
In the second case, a woman was raped by a man she met through an online dating site. He had invited her to his home for a “party” at which she turned out to be the only guest. The perpetrator was acquitted on the basis that, although the victim had not objectively consented to the penetration, “she neither physically resisted nor loudly protested. The State did not exclude the possibility that the accused did not hear her say ‘no’ and did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was aware that she was not consenting. Put differently, the court accepted that he had subjectively believed that there was consent.”

Enter a welcome new limit to the consent defence

The courts in question had no choice but to acquit given the Act’s present wording, and as the High Court put it: “Currently … an unreasonable belief in the presence of consent is a defence. The State bears the extraordinarily high burden to prove that the accused’s claim that he [it could of course have been a “she”] was under the impression that consent had been given is not reasonably possibly true.”

It accordingly held the relevant sections of the Act to be unconstitutional and invalid and ordered that they be read such that “…it is not a valid defence for that accused person to rely on a subjective belief that the complainant was consenting to the conduct in question, unless the accused took objectively reasonable steps to ascertain that the complainant consented to [the] sexual conduct in question.” (Emphasis supplied).

How will our courts interpret this in practice?

Based on the Act’s current wording, our courts have previously held that, “where there was no express rejection of the sexual act … consent has the following requirements: (a) the consent itself must be recognised by law; (b) it must be real consent; and (c) it must be given by a person capable of consent.”

Assuming the Constitutional Court upholds the High Court’s declaration of invalidity, we can only guess how our criminal courts will ultimately interpret whatever new wording it and parliament (which has 18 months to amend the Act) finally settle on. But something like the five-point common sense definition of consent given in Amnesty International’s article “Let’s Talk About Consent” may well form the basis of judicial interpretation down the line.

The article further suggests that “Consent is not about signing a contract! It’s about communication and about making sure all sexual activities happen with mutual consent.” Which seems like a fair and practical way of looking at it.

The bottom line?

One would hope that our courts will ultimately decide that only a genuine, unequivocal, unpressured, informed, specific and un-retracted “Yes” will be enough to escape conviction.

As a final thought, remember that this new law only comes into force if and when the Constitutional Court confirms it.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

Sep 25

0

How Does the New Corruption Reporting Law Affect Your Business?

By Kruger & Co | Business, Criminal Law / Crime

“In defence of Madiba’s legacy, we will continue to wage a relentless war on corruption…” (President Cyril Ramaphosa)

You may have seen mention of the new amendment to the Prevention and Combatting of Corrupt Activities (POCCA) Act that imposes severe penalties for any failure to report corruption. If you did see it, you quite possibly thought “Doesn’t apply to me, I’m just a small business”.

Wrong! Let’s have a look at who the new law applies to, what it requires of you, the risk you run if you don’t pay it due attention, and how you should manage this new risk.

Who does the new reporting requirement apply to?

Not just big companies and multinational businesses. It applies not only to all members of “incorporated state-owned entities” but also to all persons and entities in the private sector. The definition here is very broad indeed, and it includes all types and sizes of businesses from sole trader up, all types of entity large and small, all companies, every “body of persons” and every “other legal person”.

In short, it applies to you!

What does it require of you?

Simply put, you must report any corruption or attempt at corruption. Of course, we all know what the common-sense definition of “corruption” is. If you need an exhaustive legal definition, we can certainly help you with that.

But in practice just be aware that it applies to any agreement or offer by an “associated” person (including employees, independent contractors and the like) to give anyone else any unlawful “gratification”. What’s more, “gratification” is so widely defined as to include every possible form of monetary or non-monetary advantage (or avoidance of disadvantage) you can think of. Naturally the agreement or offer in question must relate to an attempt to either obtain or retain a business advantage of some sort.

On another warning note, POCCA penalises not just active knowledge of corruption and wrongdoing, but also brings in concepts of “should have known” and “turned a blind eye”.

Put simply, you must report any form of “corruption”. Full stop.

What penalties apply?

In theory, the sky’s the limit here – unlimited fines and life imprisonment! In practice, courts will of course tailor the punishment to fit the crime. The bottom line: there are very clear indications that the authorities mean business, so beware.

How should you protect yourself?

The new law pulls no punches. But fortunately there’s a solid defence included in the new provision: to escape liability you only need to show that you “had in place adequate procedures designed to prevent” the corruption. There’s no definition of what this might entail, so it’s up to you to use common sense based on your particular business and circumstances. Local experts suggest that to be safe we follow the UK’s “Six Principles” – proportionality (procedures tailored to the level of your risk), top-level commitment, risk assessment, due diligence, communication, and monitoring and review.

Need help with drafting a corruption prevention protocol? Shout if we can help.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

Jun 25

0

Home Buyer loses R5.5m in Phishing Scam – Don’t Make the Same Mistake!

By Kruger & Co | Criminal Law / Crime, Property

“[The buyer] must in the circumstances take responsibility for her failure to protect herself against a known risk” (extract from judgment below)

Cybercriminals absolutely love targeting property transactions because they provide the perfect mix of large money deposits, heavy reliance on email communication from trusted parties like attorneys, banks and estate agencies, and deadlines creating a sense of urgency and lack of attention to detail.

Let’s consider just one recent example of a high-value BEC (Business Email Compromise) attack on the purchase of a house.

A textbook case costs a pensioner R5.5m

A woman describing herself as “an elderly divorced pensioner without the knowledge, experience or resources to protect herself against sophisticated cybercrime of which she had no knowledge or experience” purchased a house for R6m.
She paid a R500k deposit to the estate agents, and then after an exchange of emails with her appointed conveyancers, she paid the balance of R5.5m into what she believed to be the conveyancing firm’s account.
In fact, her email system had been hacked and the criminals were intercepting and altering both her incoming and outgoing emails. In a typically sophisticated operation, they ensured that the mails and attachments looked genuine, deceived the buyer into paying the R5.5m into their fraudulent account, and then, via a further chain of back-and-forth emails, delayed detection of the fraud for long enough to give them time to withdraw the funds and disappear.
The buyer sued the conveyancers for her R5.5m loss, arguing that they had a legal duty to protect her from the BEC. The High Court agreed and ordered the firm to pay her back, but that was reversed on appeal to the SCA (Supreme Court of Appeal).
Critically, the SCA held that in cases of “pure economic loss”, creditors have no general legal duty to protect their debtors from the interception of payments, and there is no inference of “wrongfulness”. So, it is up to the client in such a claim to prove not only negligence by the business, but also wrongfulness.
In this particular case the Court found that the buyer had “ample means to protect herself”. It was not the conveyancers but the compromise of her email account that enabled the criminals to intercept her emails. She could have paid by bank guarantee but chose to pay in cash. Moreover, she had been warned by the estate agency about this very risk and had heeded the warning and verified the agency’s banking details before paying in the deposit. She could, and should, have taken the same precaution before paying the conveyancers.
Bottom line – the buyer “must in the circumstances take responsibility for her failure to protect herself against a known risk” and must bear her R5.5m loss herself.

How to protect yourself – 5 steps to take immediately

Whether you are business or client, protect your systems from being hacked. Constantly update all your software and anti-virus/anti-malware programs. Use 2FA (two factor authentication) on your accounts. If it is your email system that is hacked and causes the loss, you have a problem! As a business you could also be in trouble for breaching POPIA (the Protection of Personal Information Act).
Constantly warn everyone about the risks of email interception and fraud and remind them never to accept any change of banking details notifications without checking.
Protect all attachments from alteration (including PDFs!).
Before making deposits, phone to confirm all banking details you are given via email. Make sure to phone a number you have confirmed to be genuine – criminals regularly provide fake contact numbers in intercepted emails and documents.
Carefully check all email addresses as scammers often make subtle changes – in this case for example the buyer failed to notice that the word “africa” in an email had been changed to “afirca”. Other common dodges are changing numerals or adding/removing hyphens.

Above all, treat all email communications as inherently unsafe and don’t let your guard down for a second!

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

Jun 25

0

The New Cannabis Act: Here’s What You Will and Won’t Be Allowed to Do

By Kruger & Co | Criminal Law / Crime, General Interest

“It’s high time they legalised cannabis” (Anon)

Much excitement has greeted the signing into law of the Cannabis for Private Purposes Act, which will formally regulate the cultivation, possession, and use of cannabis by adults in a private setting and, says the Presidency, lays the groundwork for regulatory reforms “to allow for the industrialisation of the cannabis sector.”

But although the new Act has been widely reported in the media as though it is already in force, this is not correct – it will only come into effect when its commencement date is gazetted. It is not clear at date of writing when we can expect this to happen, but it could be a lengthy process. Until then the rather vague parameters for private and personal use, possession and cultivation set by the Constitutional Court in 2018 will presumably remain in place.

In the interim, here are some highlights of the Act –

What is “cannabis” in the new Act?

“Cannabis” is defined for the purposes of the Act as meaning “the flowering or fruiting tops of a cannabis plant and includes products made therefrom” (i.e. “buds”, extracts, oils and the like) but the definition excludes “any seed, seedling, the stalk, leaves and branches.”

What you will be able to do, and what you won’t

In a nutshell, it will be legal within prescribed limits to grow, possess, use and share cannabis in private, but not to sell it. More specifically, and with the general requirement of “private purpose” –

In private: Any adult (18 or over) will be able to cultivate, use, possess and share cannabis “in a private place for a private purpose”. But not in the presence of a child or non-consenting adult, and not “if it is likely to cause a disturbance or nuisance to any person” in a nearby public place. Note that when it comes to sharing (supplying or obtaining), there cannot be any exchange of “consideration” defined as “any form of compensation, gift, reward, favour or benefit” (i.e. sale for recreational as opposed to medical use will remain prohibited, even for private purposes). The prescribed “maximum amounts” (see below) will apply in private as well as in public places.
In public: An adult will be able to possess (subject to prescribed maximum amounts), but not to use, cannabis in a public place.
Protections for children: No child (person under 18) can be given cannabis or any cannabis product, nor be allowed to possess or use it without a medical prescription, nor can they be used to deal in it. Importantly, any adult “who is in possession of cannabis must take reasonable measures to ensure that such cannabis is inaccessible to a child whether that child is under the authority, supervision or care of that adult person or not.”

Maximum amounts will be prescribed, and transport will be regulated

Regulations will prescribe –

The maximum amounts allowed for cultivation, possession and transport of cannabis.
“Conditions, restrictions, prohibitions, obligations, requirements or standards regarding the transportation of cannabis, by the person transporting cannabis as well as in respect of the passenger in such transport.”

Current speculation (i.e. you can’t hold us to this!) is that the prescribed amounts will be based on those proposed in a version of the Bill which was not incorporated in the final Act. That Bill proposed that adults would be able to –

Possess unlimited seeds and seedlings.
Privately cultivate four flowering cannabis plants per person (or eight per household occupied by two or more adults).
Privately possess 600 grams of dried cannabis per person (or 1,200 grams per household occupied by two or more adults).
Publicly possess 100 grams of dried cannabis or one flowering cannabis plant.
Provide/obtain for personal use 30 seeds/seedlings, 1 flowering cannabis plant, 100 grams of dried cannabis.

Note however that the 2020 Bill’s structure is different to that of the final Act, so wait for the final Regulations before relying on any of these speculated limits!

Criminal records to be expunged

Convictions for possession and use of cannabis (dagga) will be automatically expunged, as will convictions for dealing based on legal presumptions rather than actually dealing. Where records have not been automatically expunged, they will be expunged on application.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

Jan 29

0

You Can (and Should) Both Discipline and Prosecute Thieving Employees

By Kruger & Co | Criminal Law / Crime, Employment and Labour Law

“It’s the profile of the most trusted individual, in a position of trust, like an accountant or bookkeeper. They usually never take leave, and someone who never allows anyone access to their system would go to the length of taking their laptops with them while they are on holiday so that they can continue working. They are usually caught in the moment of forced absence from work.” (Specialised Commercial Crimes Court as reported by News24)

Our courts report a surge in serious cases of theft from employers by their most trusted employees – often bookkeepers and accountants. The greater the trust placed in these dishonest individuals, the more they steal and the longer they get away with it.

Particularly in more serious cases, employers should lay criminal charges as well as instituting disciplinary proceedings. Criminal courts are imposing hefty deterrent sentences, and the Labour Court has confirmed that laying charges does not prejudice the simultaneous disciplinary process.

Minimum sentences apply

Firstly, minimum sentencing provisions apply when large amounts have been stolen. Even first offenders must be sentenced to a minimum of 15 years’ imprisonment for any fraud or theft involving more than R500,000 (R100,000 for persons acting together or R10,000 for law enforcement officers) unless “substantial and compelling circumstances exist which justify the imposition of a lesser sentence”.

Let’s look at some recent cases –

50 years for a R537m theft: Over some two decades of employment in a position of trust as an accountant, an employee admitted to 336 counts relating to thefts totalling an astonishing R537m. She had tried to cover up with fraudulent VAT claims and although her lavish lifestyle (she spent R5m on one specific day) attracted attention, it seems that it was only an anonymous tip off that eventually led to her detection and arrest. She was sentenced by a Specialised Commercial Crimes Court (SCCC) to 50 years behind bars.
10 years for a R13.4m fraud: A creditor’s clerk, once again in a position of trust, pleaded guilty to 972 counts of fraud totalling over R13.4m and stretching over 9 years, only discovered when she went on sick leave. The mitigating factors in her case (she has health issues and is 65 years old) led the High Court to reduce her 15-year sentence to a below-the-minimum 10 years.
18 years for a R14m theft: A financial manager stole over R14m, leaving the couple who had trusted him with their finances without their life savings (including a cancer diagnosis payout) and on their knees financially and emotionally. The Court’s sentence of 3 years more than the minimum reflected its finding that the aggravating factors justified removing the manager from society, despite his gambling addiction and previous clean record.
15 to 30 years for a R52m fraud? A trusted store accountant “viewed as a brother” by its traumatised owners (one of whom even contemplated suicide), admitted to two counts of fraud totalling R52m as a result of his gambling addiction. He will only be sentenced in March, but it seems from media reports that he is unlikely to receive less than the minimum 15 years’ imprisonment per count, possibly to run concurrently.

The Labour Court confirms you can do both

A municipal manager with 15 years’ service was criminally charged with very serious frauds. He asked the Labour Court to stop his employer’s disciplinary process against him, arguing that in defending himself at the disciplinary hearing he might have to give self-incriminating evidence.

The Labour Court disagreed, finding that the employee had several layers of protection available to him in the criminal trial, and clearing the employer to proceed with the disciplinary hearing simultaneously. In fact, said the Court, “It is tantamount to an abuse of court process by a person holding a managerial position using court processes to prevent his employer from subjecting him to a disciplinary process under the guise of protecting his constitutional rights.” It accordingly ordered him to pay all costs on the punitive attorney and client scale – a very unusual censure in labour law matters where both sides are normally left to cover their own costs.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

Jan 27

0

Check All Emailed Bank Details for BEC (“Business Email Compromise”) Frauds

By Kruger & Co | Criminal Law / Crime, Property

“…sending bank details by email is inherently dangerous, and so must either be avoided in favour of, for example, a secure portal or it must be accompanied by other precautionary measures like telephonic confirmation or appropriate warnings which are securely communicated.” (Extract from judgment below)

Before you make any payment to a supplier’s bank account on the basis of an emailed invoice, check that the bank account details in the invoice are genuine.

If your supplier’s or your email system have been hacked in a BEC (“Business Email Compromise”) scam, the invoice details could easily be fraudulent and if so you will be paying into a scammer’s bank account.

Property transactions are prime BEC targets, but not the only ones!

You will have seen many warnings about the global problem of conveyancing email scams, where emails are intercepted and false bank account details appear in invoices or in the mails themselves. Property sales are usually high value transactions and thus a natural target for fraudsters.

Increasingly though, other non-property related business-to-business and business-to-customer transactions are being targeted – the higher the value of the deal, the more likely it is to be subjected to online crime.

Let’s take a topical example…

It’s high-value inverter time, and the bad guys are taking note…

You decide to install a high-value inverter, courtesy of Eskom’s “no end in sight” loadshedding. Inverter installers – let’s call them “Speedy Sparkies Inverter Systems” – email you a quote for R145,000. You accept. Back comes an emailed invoice from fred@speedysparkies.co.za asking you to pay R100,000 upfront to cover materials. You transfer R100k to the X Bank account on the invoice and ask when they will install. The friendly return email reads “Thanks for the payment, we’ll fit you in next week Thursday. Best, Fred”.

Thursday rolls around but no Fred. You phone him. “But you haven’t paid us yet” says Fred. “Yes I have, I paid into your account last week and you emailed confirmation of receipt of payment”. “No, definitely no payment received and no email from us confirming receipt.” “That’s impossible Fred, I have your email in front of me”. At which stage you notice, with a sinking heart and rising panic, that that last email came from fred@speedy-sparkies.co.za – with a hyphen. “Nope, really sorry” says Fred, “there’s no hyphen in our email address and we bank with Y Bank not X Bank. You’ve been scammed. We’ll try to help you but you need to pay the R100k again before we can install”.

Denial, anger, acceptance, then off to the bank to ask for help and off to SAPS to lay charges. Your bank and the police are sympathetic but not hopeful of recovery. So what happened?

How did you just lose R100k?

Using phishing tactics, the scammers hacked into Speedy’s email system then monitored all their emails, waiting for a high value contract to pop up. They pounced, intercepted the email to you with the invoice, changed only the return email address and the bank account.

You suspected nothing – the look and feel of the email and invoice are totally genuine, the wording of the mails is Fred’s (right down to his trademark sign-off “Best, Fred”), the email address difference is so subtle you don’t notice it. Sometimes scammers can even “spoof” an email address, where the sending email address appears to be the same as the legitimate one.

It all looks 100% authentic and of course by the time you and Fred realise anything is amiss, your money is long gone.

The only winners here are the scammers and the question now is “who is the loser?”

Who takes the loss? Who pays for your inverter now? Can you sue?

Here’s the rub – you blame Speedy for allowing their system to be hacked. You accuse them of negligence and of failing in their duty to keep your data safe in compliance with POPIA (the Protection of Personal Information Act). But Speedy deny fault and say you carry the risk and anyway it’s your mistake for not noticing the falsified email address and for not phoning Fred to check the bank account details. Speedy’s insurers confirm they have no cover for this sort of fraud.

Do you have a legal claim against the business? There’s no cut-and-dried answer to that, with our case law outcomes to date tending to vary with each particular set of facts, and the courts referring to various questions of proving negligence, compliance with payment instructions, “considerations of legal and public policy”, and reference to a general rule that anyone making a payment to someone else is required to check that they are paying into the correct account.

So as a customer, it’s probably safest to work on the basis that you could well be held to be the party at risk and will almost certainly have to prove (at the very least) negligence on the part of the business in order to stand a chance of establishing any claim against it.

As a business on the other hand, your legal position is far from secure. You will be accused of negligence (and perhaps also breach of POPIA) if it is your system that was hacked. Even if it is your customer’s email account that has been hacked you are still at risk, as confirmed by the recent High Court award of R5.5m (plus interest and costs on the punitive attorney and client scale) in just such a case against a conveyancing firm on the basis of its legal duty of care towards a property purchaser, and on a finding that “but for the negligent transmission of its account details and failure to warn [the buyer] upfront of the inherent danger of BEC, she would not have suffered the loss.” In the Court’s words “sending bank details by email is inherently dangerous, and so must either be avoided in favour of, for example, a secure portal or it must be accompanied by other precautionary measures like telephonic confirmation or appropriate warnings which are securely communicated”.

On a strictly practical level, your reputation is at stake and those 5-star Google Reviews could be in for a knock.

Bottom line – take legal advice specific to your case. Perhaps you will both be advised to cut your losses and to share the pain 50/50. Far from ideal, but a lot better than protracted and bitter litigation.

Prevention being as always a lot better than cure, we share below some ideas on how to protect yourself from this sort of cyber fraud in the first place.

Prevention – here’s what to do

Businesses: Most importantly, protect your systems from being hacked! Train all staff in the increasingly sophisticated nature of phishing emails, update all your software and beef up your anti-virus and anti-malware protections and protocols. Consider not putting your banking details on invoices and tell customers to phone you to check any details they are given. Consider using a secure payment portal with two-factor authentication (2FA) and protect any PDF documents you send (it’s a myth that PDFs can’t be altered). Tell customers on every email that you will never advise any change of bank details by email. Check with your insurers whether you can get cover for this risk.
Customers: Take the same strong anti-hacking measures. Never pay anything without checking bank details direct with the business, either in person or telephonically (don’t use the phone numbers on the emails or invoices, they could easily have been faked as well). Check email addresses carefully – make sure the return address is the same as the sender’s address (some tips on how to do that here), watch for subtle changes like ‘.co.za’ becoming ‘.com’ or vice-versa, and remember that every hyphen, every letter and every number in the email address counts. Use bank-defined beneficiaries for online banking where possible. Be very suspicious of any “we’ve changed our banking details” communications.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

Jan 03

0

“Double Jeopardy” for Tax Evasion – Penalties plus Prosecution

By Kruger & Co | Criminal Law / Crime, Tax

“Administrative penalties and criminal proceedings do not serve the same purpose. The [one] is aimed at strengthening internal controls of the administrative authority and to promote compliance while the other is aimed at correcting a behaviour that caused harm to the society.” (Extract from judgment below)

SARS has announced major crackdowns on tax defaulters, and a recent High Court decision highlights the dangers of being caught out for “intentional tax evasion”.

R1.3m prejudice to SARS

A close corporation (CC) registered for both income tax and VAT (value added tax) rendered “nil” returns to SARS over a four-year period, indicating that no income had been generated and no expenses incurred.
After a tax audit, SARS determined (and the CC admitted) that the returns were false and that SARS had in consequence suffered prejudice of R819,607 on VAT and R493,600 on Income Tax.
SARS levied 10% late payment penalties and further imposed a 150% understatement penalty on both Income Tax and VAT. The 150% was imposed for “intentional tax evasion”.
Both the CC and the member were then also charged criminally for intentional tax evasion.

Both penalties and prosecution – is that “Double Jeopardy”?

They applied to the High Court for a declaration that the relevant sections of the Tax Administration Act are invalid, arguing that it is inconsistent with the constitution to “criminally punish the taxpayer twice for the same criminal offence of intentional tax evasion.”

Which raised the question of whether or not this was a case of “double jeopardy” – the legal rule that “no one may be punished for the same offence twice.” You cannot, in other words, be repeatedly prosecuted for the same offence.

But, held the Court, “nothing precludes civil administrative proceedings and criminal proceedings from the single act”. Double jeopardy does not apply in a case such as this where “calling the taxpayer to account for the wrongdoing before an administrative body as well as the criminal are two distinct processes”.

In other words, both the CC and the member, having been subjected already to hefty administrative penalties (that 150% understatement penalty must hurt particularly badly!) now face criminal prosecution as well. Criminal records, substantial fines and direct imprisonment are all on the table.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.