Iqbal Sharma has ‘no emotional attachment’ to SA, State argues in bail appeal

The State has opposed alleged Gupta associate Iqbal Sharma’s application appealing the denial of bail, arguing that he has no emotional attachment to South Africa.

“We have submitted in the lower court evidence to show that the appellant has no emotional attachment to this country. He says that he is married, but we have shown the court the number of times that he travels in and out of the country.

“He possesses a British passport, a residential permit from the UAE (United Arab Emirates), a residential permit in India, and he operates business from out of the country,” the National Prosecuting Authority’s State Advocate Peter Serunye argued. The virtual hearing before Judge Joseph Mhlambi in the Bloemfontein High Court on Friday heard earlier that Sharma was not a flight risk as he had travelled extensively across the globe and still returned to South Africa.

Sharma brought an application for appeal in the High Court after he was denied bail in the Bloemfontein Magistrate’s Court on 8 June. He is currently in custody.Magistrate Estelle de Lange, in her judgment, stated, among other things, that there was a likelihood the accused would flee the country.

In addition, De Lange said Sharma did not have much money left in the country, and no bail amount would secure his stay here, News24 reported at the time.Sharma was arrested on fraud and money laundering charges to the tune of R25 million – linked to the failed Estina dairy farm project.

The State submitted that the appellant was a flight risk because of the assets he had in the country and abroad.”The reason why we see him as a flight risk is the fact that he has assets, not only in the country, but especially in the UAE, where he is operating his business from.Serunye said, further citing an account abroad:

His business is registered in the UAE [and generating] a lot of income in SA, but the money is transferred to the UAE. Therefore, he was setting himself a nest in that country where he will live off of these amounts. If not, why was he hiding it from the court?

The State further responded to the defence’s argument that Sharma returned to South Africa over the past two years, knowing that he was being investigated in this matter.The State was of the view that “the situation changes when he is being charged criminally”.

“We ask the court to turn down this application, in that the orders that were made by the lower court were based on evidence, five affidavits which were given to the magistrate and analysed. This bail application was very extensive.

“We are of the view that she did not commit any wrong in her judgment and that her judgment was right [in that] the applicant poses a flight risk,” Serunye concluded.Judgment is reserved to Wednesday.