A notice published in the Government Gazette last week and signed off on 16 April, indicated that the following assets were to be forfeited to the state:
- R12.4-million in Odendaal’s Absa bank account.
- R26.6-million from a second Absa bank account.
- R1.1-million from a Capitec bank account.
- R998,015.80 from a second Capitec account.
- R1.1-million from a Standard Bank account.
- Her property at Val de Vie, valued at R18-million.
The money will be deposited in the National Revenue Fund. The assets listed above add up to a cumulative R60-million. This is roughly the same amount transferred to Odendaal via Jooste’s Mayfair Speculators between 2011 and 2015.
After the Reserve Bank froze her assets in April 2021, Odendaal applied to the court for an order allowing her to receive a monthly allowance. When asked to provide a breakdown of her fixed monthly expenses, reasonable living expenses and legal costs, she came up with the princely sum of R150,000 a month.
From July 2021 to March 2022, she received R150,000 a month or a total of R1.35-million. She had also already received funds of more than R1.7-million from a Nedbank account, which was depleted.
If you are found guilty of breaching exchange control regulations, the Reserve Bank can seize assets of a value equal to the violations. The assets are then forfeited to the state. The alternative is a jail term of five years.
Dhahini Naidu, a director at Fairbridges Wertheim Becker attorneys, says the significant aspect here is the regulatory provision that allows for the forfeiture of assets without the prerequisite of a conviction, thereby fast-tracking the process of asset recovery.
“This action is not just about penalising the wrongdoers but also about redirecting the ill-gotten gains towards the public treasury, which can then be used for national development. This serves a dual purpose: it acts as a deterrent against corporate fraud and aids in the economic restitution to the state, which might have been undermined by such fraudulent activities,” she says.
The actions taken in the Steinhoff case reflect a broader regulatory and legal shift towards greater accountability and transparency in corporate South Africa. Naidu observes that the case is likely to influence future legal strategies and corporate policies, stressing the importance of ethical management and the severe repercussions of its breach.
“The asset forfeiture in the Steinhoff scandal is an important event in South African legal practice, illustrating the vigorous application of laws designed to combat financial crimes. This not only reaffirms the strength of the South African legal system in dealing with complex corporate fraud but also sets a precedent for how similar cases might be handled in the future, potentially altering the landscape of corporate governance and legal recourse in South Africa,” she said. DM