• What is the difference between cybercrime; hi-tech crime; and computer-facilitated crime? Knowing what cybercrime entails can assist users to be more alert. Refer to the article published on p10 and p11 of Servamus: June 2020..

    What is the difference between cybercrime; hi-tech crime; and computer-facilitated crime? Knowing what cybercrime entails can assist users to be more alert. Refer to the article published on p10 and p11 of Servamus: June 2020..

  • Social media is not all about being connected – it comes with a lot of pressure about what you say or share and can even have a negative impact on your career. Refer to our articles about social media published on p21 and p28 of Servamus: June 2020.

    Social media is not all about being connected – it comes with a lot of pressure about what you say or share and can even have a negative impact on your career. Refer to our articles about social media published on p21 and p28 of Servamus: June 2020.

  • Do you know what hacking, money muling and supplier side scams entail? Learn more about these concepts to ensure that you are not these cybercriminals’ next victim. Refer to the articles published on p30; p32 and p38 of Servamus: June 2020.

    Do you know what hacking, money muling and supplier side scams entail? Learn more about these concepts to ensure that you are not these cybercriminals’ next victim. Refer to the articles published on p30; p32 and p38 of Servamus: June 2020.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
0
0
0
s2smodern
powered by social2s

Corruption and/or allegations of corruption, is currently strongly in the news. Accordingly, readers of this column should take note of the three issues referred to infra.

  1. Corrupt policemen and corrupt public prosecutor - Famanda v State (930/2017) [2018] ZASCA (28 September 2018) (SCA)

Introduction
Section 9(1)(a) of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act 12 of 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the “Corruption Act”) provides as follows:

“9. Offences in respect of corrupt activities relating to members of prosecuting authority
(1) Any -

(a) member of the prosecuting authority who, directly or indirectly, accepts or agrees or offers to accept any gratification from any other person, whether for the benefit of him-/herself or for the benefit of another person;

is guilty of the offence of corrupt activities relating to members of the prosecuting authority;

(b) …

(2) …”

Section 4(1)(a) of the Corruption Act provides as follows:

“4. Offences in respect of corrupt activities relating to public officers

(1) Any -

(a) public officer who, directly or indirectly, accepts or agrees or offers to accept any gratification from any other person, whether for the benefit of him-/herself or for the benefit of another person;

(b) …

is guilty of the offence of corrupt activities relating to public officers.

(2) …”

Section 4 must of course be read with the definition of “public officer” (in Afrikaans text: “openbare beampte”) as it appears in section 1 of the Corruption Act. This definition provides, inter alia, that a “public officer” means any person who is an employee of a “public body”. “Public body”, inter alia means “any department of State or administration in the national or provincial sphere of government or any municipality in the local sphere of government”. This, inter alia, includes members of the SAPS, but expressly excludes members of the prosecuting authority.

Furthermore, both sections 4 and 9 supra must be read with the definition of the (rather lengthy) word “gratification” (in Afrikaans text: “beloning”). The word “gratification” is so wide that it includes “anything from money to a bottle of brandy to a holiday in Mauritius to sex”.

Section 51(2)(a)(i) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the “Minimum Sentences Act”) provides as follows:

“51. Discretionary minimum sentences for certain serious offences

(1) …

(2) Notwithstanding any other law but subject to subsections (3) and (6) [of this section 51], a regional court or a High Court shall sentence a person who has been convicted of an offence referred to in -

(a) Part II of Schedule 2, in the case of -

(i) a first offender, to imprisonment [incarceration] for a

period not less than 15 years;

(ii) and (iii)…

(b) and (c)…

(3) to (8)…”

The relevant portion of Part II of Schedule 2 referred to in section 51(2)(a) of the Minimum Sentences Act supra, provides that -

“Any offence relating to exchange control, extortion, fraud, forgery, uttering, theft, or an offence in Part 1 to 4, or section 17, 20 or 21 (in so far as it relates to the aforementioned offences) of Chapter 2 of the Prevention and Combating of Corruption Activities Act 12 of 2004 -

(a) involving amounts of more than R500 000;

(b) involving amounts of more than R100 000, if it is proved that the offence was committed by a person, group of persons, syndicate or any enterprise acting in the execution or furtherance of a common conspiracy; or

(c) if it is proved that the offence was committed by any law enforcement officer -

(i) involving amounts of more than R10 000; or

(ii) as a member of a group of persons, syndicate or any enterprise acting in the execution or furtherance of a common conspiracy”.

(Emphasis added by Pollex.)

Section 51(8) of the Minimum Sentences Act provides as follows:

“51. Discretionary minimum sentences for certain serious offences

(8) For the purposes of this section and Schedule 2, ‘law enforcement officer’ includes -

(a) a member of the National Intelligence Agency or the South African Secret Service referred to in section 3 of the Intelligence Services Act, 2002; and

(b) a correctional official of the Department of Correctional Services or a person authorised under the Correctional Services Act, 1998.”

****************************

[This is only an extract of a legal discussion on corruption. If you are interested in reading the rest of this Famanda case, contact Servamus’s offices at tel: (012) 345 4660/22 or send an e-mail to: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. to find out how.]

0
0
0
s2smodern
powered by social2s

Servamus - June 2020

In February 2020, a family from Pretoria East had a harmful experience with a smartwatch which was meant to keep their children safe.
By Kotie Geldenhuys
When Anita* (a widow) found love via an online platform, she was thrilled.
By Kotie Geldenhuys
One unforeseen consequence of the emergence of the Internet, is the rapid increase in the illicit trade in child sexual abuse images and videos worldwide.
By Kotie Geldenhuys
The world around us is evolving at a rapid pace.
By Adv Jacqueline Fick

Pollex - June 2020

Read More The doctrine of common purpose and the crime of rape powered by social2s - S V Tshabalala; and S V Ntuli CCT 323/18 and CCT 69/19 (11 December 2019) (CC)
On 20 September 1998 (more than 20 years ago and while common law rape was still in operation) a group of young men - the two accused persons Mr Tshabalala and Mr Ntuli, together with their co-accused - went on a rampage in the Umthambeka section of the township of Tembisa in Gauteng.
Read More - S V Masuku 2019 (1) SACR 276 (GJ)
Mr Masuku, the accused, appeared before the regional court in Johannesburg (“the trial court”) on two charges of rape in contravention of section 3 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act 32 of 2007, read with section 51(1) and, further read with Schedule 2 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 (which provides for minimum sentences).
Read More - Van Rooyen and Another V Minister of Police 2019(1) SACR 349 (NCK)
The main characters in this legal drama are the following (note that the particulars of some of them are not mentioned in the judgment per se infra, accordingly Pollex found it on the Internet):

Letters - June 2020

NAME: W/O L H Zandberg STATION: Pretoria Central SAPS
Congratulations to Pollex for reaching 400 not out. Thanks for your assistance throughout the years. May God bless you with good health and joy and happiness, Brigadier.
“To sue or not to sue: May a public school be held liable when things go wrong?”
I want to take this opportunity to thank Servamus because, as a legal advisor in the police I cannot do it without Servamus.
May Magazine Cover

Servamus' Mission

Servamus is a community-based safety and security magazine for both members of the community as well as safety and security practitioners with the aim of increasing knowledge and sharing information, dedicated to improving their expertise, professionalism and service delivery standards. It promotes sound crime management practices, freedom of speech, education, training, information sharing and a networking platform.