ConCourt turns down bid to unfreeze convicted fraudster Petrus Louw’s trust

The Constitutional Court has shot down a bid to overturn a sequestration order against a trust that Cape Town-based financial advisor and convicted fraudster Petrus Louw used to launder millions of rands he had swindled his clients out of.

This year, Louw pleaded guilty to more than 50 counts of fraud, forgery and money laundering in the Bellville Specialised Commercial Crime Court and was sentenced to 12 years in prison.

Essentially, the case related to his having convinced his clients to hand over millions of rands under the guise that he would invest these funds for them. But, instead, he pocketed the funds.

The Western Cape High Court handed down the original sequestration order against the HNP Trust – of which Louw was formerly a trustee along with his wife, Martha Louw, and his erstwhile business partner, Willem Cronje, in 2019.

ALSO READ: Fraudster sentenced to 15 years in jail

This on the back of an application brought by the trustees of Louw’s estate, which had by then already been declared insolvent as a result of the graft.

At the core of this application was a R70 million claim from the estate trustees against the HNP trust, which they alleged Louw had used as a conduit to channel the money through to a company of his called Pholaco.

The HNP trustees – who now comprise Cronje, Gert Burger and Anton Keet – tried first to overturn the order through the High Court and then the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), but were denied leave to appeal by both.

They then approached the Constitutional Court but yesterday suffered the same fate there too.

ALSO READ: ID granted restraining order against SAPS tech head

Justice Nonkosi Mhlantla penned the apex court’s ruling, which she opened by saying: “The fruits of ill-gotten gains often leave a bitter taste in the mouths of those who are swindled by cunning fraudsters. Meanwhile, these fruits line the pockets of these fraudsters and launch them into affluence. This is most unfortunate, as it wreaks havoc
on livelihoods and leaves the victims embroiled in litigation in an attempt to recover these monies”.

Mhlantla said it was about “what legal claim, if any, the estate of an alleged ‘self-confessed fraudster’ can have against a trust that he administered, to recover funds derived from fraudulent activities”.

Ultimately, though, the apex court found it didn’t have jurisdiction to decide on the case.

– bernadettew@citizen.co.za