The Bobroffs were to face numerous charges related to the overcharging of clients, many of them badly injured victims of road accidents. Image: Moneyweb
Fugitive father and son duo Ronald and Darren Bobroff have forfeited R95 million to the South African government after the Constitutional Court dismissed their last remaining option to continue their fight to get the money back.
The court dismissed their application for leave to appeal against an earlier Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) judgment which found the money was the proceeds of crime and should remain frozen.
The ruling means the Bobroffs have exhausted all of their legal options and have consequently forfeited the money to the state.
In response, the Bobroffs, through their lawyer Richard Spoor, have maintained their innocence and said the judgment “cements a manifest injustice that was done to my clients”.
Spoor added that the Bobroffs are more than willing to return to South Africa to stand trial if the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) guarantees that they will not be arrested and held in custody during legal proceedings.
The case dates back to March 2016 when the Bobroffs fled to Australia after the Hawks issued warrants for their arrest.
They were to face numerous criminal charges – including theft, fraud, money laundering, and tax evasion – related to their overcharging of clients, many of them badly injured and vulnerable victims of road accidents.
It seems the Bobroffs stashed away an amount of R103 million in two Israeli bank accounts over many years. Israeli authorities froze the accounts in 2017 after Ronald Bobroff tried to make a withdrawal, as Interpol had issued red notices for their arrests a year earlier.
The Bobroffs appealed against the seizure of the funds in 2021, but the SCA confirmed that R95 million of the money was indeed the proceeds of crime and should remain frozen.
The Bobroffs then approached the Constitutional Court for leave to appeal, which was dismissed in February.
NPA spokesperson Advocate Mthunzi Mhaga confirmed to Moneyweb that the money is forfeited to the state. “The Bobroffs have exhausted all avenues to attack the final forfeiture order. The money should now be forfeited to the State.”
He added that the Bobroffs will never see the money again, even if they return to South Africa to stand trial. “Once the money was forfeited to the state, and all appeal processes have been exhausted, the money is finally lost to the State.”
Mhaga also said due to the absence of an extradition treaty with Australia, “it is therefore highly unlikely that they will ever stand trial in South Africa”.
Spoor sent a lengthy response to Moneyweb questions.
Apart from echoing the Bobroffs’ long-held view that they suffered a great injustice, Spoor stressed that the court did not dismiss the application on its merits but on the basis that the application fell outside the court’s jurisdiction.
He also criticised the SCA judgment. “The finding of the SCA that the alleged overreaching of clients, by charging in excess of the 25% limit stipulated in the Contingency Fees Act, constitutes theft, is simply wrong.
“The other allegation on which the NPA relied, namely that there was a fictitious charge of R15 000 levied on each client file, is also without merit and a comprehensive audit of the practice by the LSNP [Law Society of the Northern Provinces] has confirmed this.
“While the High Court relied entirely on this spurious ground to show the commission of a crime, it is significant that the SCA did not. It placed no reliance on this allegation, because there were no grounds on which it could do so. In effect the High Court and the SCA found as they did each on a completely different basis, none of which basis stand up to scrutiny,” Spoor said.
In response to a question whether the Bobroffs would return to South Africa to stand trial, Spoor said there are no pending charges against them. “The NPA issued a warrant of arrest, the basis for which has never been disclosed. To the extent that the NPA imagines that there is a charge to be answered to they have failed to indicate what it is. The NPA is invited to do so.”
He added that his “clients would love to return to South Africa and to the extent that it may be possible to obtain some reasonable assurances from the NPA, that they would not be arrested and held in custody, pending the outcome of any trial they would be willing to do so”.
“It would be helpful too if the NPA would disclose the nature of the charges that they face. The NPA’s appalling treatment of Mrs Elaine Bobroff has not instilled any confidence that they will be treated fairly, if they do return.”
The Hawks arrested Ronald Bobroff’s wife Elaine in March 2016 on charges of money laundering and fraud after millions of rands were allegedly channelled through her bank account. However, the charges were later withdrawn and she was released.
Spoor also said if the “NPA wishes to pursue criminal charges, which is hard to conceive, they are welcome to engage with me”.
The Bobroffs’ offer to return to South Africa also comes after Ronald Bobroff severely criticised the judiciary and several SCA judges who presided over the matter.
Moneyweb obtained a WhatsApp voice recording that Ronald Bobroff sent to a third party shortly after the SCA judgment was handed down.
In this recording, he says: “If ever I needed convincing of the depths to which South Africa’s once highly regarded judiciary has sunk … it’s what’s happened this week.”
Bobroff also makes several inflammatory statements about two of the five SCA judges he apparently had previous interactions with. On legal advice, Moneyweb decided not to reveal the judges’ identities or the nature of the defamatory statements.
The Bobroffs’ legal team did not ask for the recusal of the judges during the case.
In response to Moneyweb’s query, Spoor did not dispute the authenticity of the voice message.
He said it “was a private and confidential communication between Ronald Bobroff and his attorneys in Australia/Israel, following the SCA decision, dismissing his application for leave to appeal, in May 2021”.
He then claimed a hacker illegally obtained copies of the message and other confidential communications.
However, Moneyweb confirmed the authenticity of the voice note and that it was sent to an unrelated third party. It is also clear from the recording itself that it was not sent to one of Bobroff’s legal representatives. In the recording, he offers to send the court papers to the individual if the individual “was feeling interested”.
Moneyweb has been covering many developments related to the Bobroffs since the first allegations of illegal conduct emerged. The coverage included the outcomes of disciplinary hearings of industry bodies and court cases.
However, since the first articles were published, several anonymous social media accounts have emerged which severely defamed journalists who were covering the story, and other related individuals, especially after Moneyweb published articles regarding such developments.
Within hours of Moneyweb sending questions directly to both Ronald and Darren Bobroff, several extremely defamatory posts about this journalist and other parties appeared on Twitter.
Moneyweb asked Spoor whether he could confirm whether Ronald and/or Darren Bobroff were in any way directly or indirectly involved with the posts.
Spoor responded by stating: “I have asked Mr Bobroff, to help identify the person responsible for the Twitter accounts, ‘Tony Beamish Exposed’ and ‘Anthony Millar Exposed’ (it is not Mr Ronald Bobroff) and to ensure that they are stopped and removed.”
Moneyweb then asked why Darren Bobroff’s name was not included in the denial, to which Spoor did not respond.
The posts have subsequently been removed.
NOW READ: Supreme Court of Appeal calls fugitive Bobroffs ‘thieves’
Download our app and read this and other great stories on the move. Available for Android and iOS.
