NPA to blame for Atul ruling, DA charges
Atul Gupta, whose whereabouts are unknown, got the Asset Forfeiture Unit R10 million Estina preservation order set aside.
Local farmer, George mMabuza lifts a dead calf, which he says must have been there for a long time during a site visit by the leader of the DA, Mmusi Maimane to the Vrede Dairy farm that was run by Gupta company Estina on 12 July 2017. Picture: Neil McCartney
The ruling that Atul Gupta’s R10 million frozen in terms of an order obtained by the Asset Forfeiture Unit (AFU) must be released was the result of “apparently shoddy work” by the National Prosecuting Authority and the AFU, the DA said yesterday.
Democratic Alliance Federal chairperson James Selfe, in response to the Free State High Court ruling that the preservation order obtained against Gupta by the NPA’s AFU be set aside, said it was “deeply disappointing”.
“We just have to hope the cases against the Guptas and others in the related matters do not follow the same path,” said Selfe.
The AFU had suspected the R10 million was part of the more than R220 million siphoned from the Vrede dairy project in the Free State.
Gupta, whose whereabouts remain unknown, successfully contested the preservation order secured by the AFU. He was represented by advocate Rafik Bhana. At least eight suspects have appeared in court in connection with these funds. However, Gupta was not arrested and he has left the country.
“Legitimate money was mixed with proceeds of crime,” said Thato Ntimutse, for the AFU, in his arguments to the court.
He added that millions of ill-gotten money was paid into a pool account held by the Bank of Baroda in order to mix it with clean money and conceal what are believed to be illicit transactions.
Michael Hellens, for the Gupta-owned companies, argued that the state was presenting new arguments as what it was raising were “not part of the files submitted to court”. Hellens is acting on behalf of Aerohaven Trading (Pvt) Ltd, Oakbay Investments (Pvt) Ltd, Westdawn Investments (Pvt) Ltd, Annex Distribution (Pvt) Ltd and Islandsite Investments One Eighty (Pvt) Ltd.
Advocate Luc Spiller, for the Bank of Baroda, said the state was assuming the funds were the proceeds of crime without substantive proof.
“The state is making absurd accusations. That money has been withdrawn and it’s gone, so why freeze the account years later?
“You cannot justify the preservation order in any way. It must be set aside.”
Also read:
//
For more news your way, follow The Citizen on Facebook and Twitter.
For more news your way
Download our app and read this and other great stories on the move. Available for Android and iOS.
