David vs Goliath – one man’s fight against the banksters

When Gerrie Alberts opened a current account in 2006 for the millions going through the precious metal business he and his partner owned, he thought the money would be safe in the hands of one of the ‘big five’ banks. He was wrong.

When the original account was opened there was no resolution in place to add electronic transactions to the current account, and both directors had to sign together on all transactions. Unbeknownst to him, the original account was closed in August 2008 and a new current account opened in September 2008. The bank did not approve the authorisation of electronic transactions on this account. Only when Alberts’ partner passed away in 2010 did he realise that he had been defrauded of more than R50 million.

Alberts came to the conclusion that his late partner had conspired with an insider in the bank, where all the unlawful electronic transactions were authorised. He started demanding answers from the bank and demanded repayment or reversal of all monies paid electronically into, or out of the unlawful account, to the tune of millions. The bank started to duck and dive and refused to answer letters and emails.

Alberts also opened a case of fraud at the Roodepoort Police Station in 2012, but the police never informed the bank that it was being investigated for suspected fraud and no statement was taken from the bank until October 2015.

Alberts has been demanding a number of original documents, to which he is entitled by law, from the bank since 2010. These include a legal account approved by the bank; a company resolution certified by the company secretary and signed by the directors; a memorandum and articles to add a business account and electronic profile; and the original mandate to authorise electronic transactions. He also demanded the documents that prove compliance with the Financial Intelligence Centre Act 38 of 2001 (the Fica) and Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act 37 of 2002 (the Fais Act). Furthermore, the fraudulent account application was not completed in full, checked or approved and was also not signed by a manager in the bank; therefore it was not legitimate.

The bank refused to supply the documents.

When the bank was subpoenaed to appear in court in January 2016, it refused to comply with the court order which stated that, if an affidavit accompanying the requested documentation was furnished to the investigating officer five court days prior to the court date, the bank’s attendance in court would not be required. The bank did not comply. No subsequent action was taken by the court.

“Are the big banks above the law?” asked Alberts. “Shaun Abrahams, the head of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), said nobody is above the law”.

In 2013, the Ombudsman for banking services ruled against the bank. “The bank is unable to provide you with the Fica and Fais documents and other related information on this account. The bank has thus not complied with the Fica or Fais Acts. The bank also did not give notice prior to the closing of the accounts,” said the Ombudsman in his findings.

When senior management, who had ‘handled’ Albert’s complaint, had to report to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the bank, they sent him an email in which they stated “Both accounts were opened within the said mandate, and we attach hereto a copy of the same.” There was no such copy attached to the email, and therefore the bank’s statement was untrue, said Alberts. Alberts showed the Record a pile of documents that reasonably proved all of his allegations. The bank also said in the same email that “Any claims that Mr Alberts has should be instituted against his partner’s estate”. Alberts refuted this, saying his partner could not have committed the fraud without the help of the bank’s employee and that this boiled down to the crime of conspiracy.

“My whole fraud case is based on the fact that the bank authorised electronic transactions on a current account that were not approved by the bank. Therefore, all these transactions are fraudulent, without legal documents or mandate,” explained Alberts. He also claimed that the bank supplied the Ombudsman with unlawful documents and withheld his documents from the NPA.

Alberts questioned how, just after the new account was opened, R2 million left the country in six months (keeping in mind that this was done out of a ‘non-existent’ account which had no transaction limit in place), while the Reserve Bank’s exchange control rules at the time determined that one could only take R500 000 out of the country in one year.

To this day, the bank, conveniently albeit crudely, blames the fraud on Alberts’ deceased partner, and refuses to entertain his claims any further, despite the overwhelming evidence he has provided.

Alberts’ fight to get the bank to compensate him for his losses continues.

(In order to simplify this article, a great deal of technical information has been left out. The bank’s identity can not be revealed at this stage due to legal implications.)

Do you perhaps have more information pertaining to this story? Email us at roodepoortrecord@caxton.co.za (remember to include your contact details) or phone us on 011 955 1130.

For free daily local news on the West Rand, also visit our sister newspaper websites Randfontein Herald, Krugersdorp News and Get It Joburg West Magazine

Remember to visit our Facebook, Twitter and Instagram pages to let your voice be heard!