Edwin Sodi (Photo: X)
The DA in the Free State welcomes the order granted by the High Court in this province to finally declare six luxury properties and a Mercedes-Benz G63 AMG of the controversial businessman Edwin Sodi forfeited.
The value of the Mercedes-Benz G63 AMG is around R32 million.
Dr. Roy Jankielsohn, provincial leader of the DA in the Free State, says these assets were determined by the court to be the proceeds of illegal activities such as fraud, corruption and money laundering related to the R255 million scandal.
“The DA in the Free State Legislature played an important role in exposing this case. Funds from the Free State Department of Human Settlements that were intended to replace asbestos roofs on houses in the province were diverted to trusts that were used to buy these properties and vehicles.”
Jankielsohn says this court order is a victory for residents of the Free State.
One of Edwin Sodi’s houses Photo: Twitter)
Maroela Media previously reported that this case stems from the controversial asbestos roof tender that was awarded in October 2014, where a joint venture between Diamond Hill Trading 71 and Blackhead Consulting was irregularly awarded the contract without following proper procurement processes.
Although the contract was worth approximately R255 million, most of the work was not carried out. Instead, the contract was outsourced at significantly reduced amounts, with only a fraction of the funds reaching the final service provider.
Evidence before the court showed that almost R230 million was paid out by the department, with the largest portion of the funds being diverted to various entities, personal accounts and trusts and ultimately used to purchase luxury assets.
Edward Sodi se Mercedes Benz. (Photo: Sale)
Kaizer Kganyago, spokesperson for the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), previously said the court found on a balance of probabilities that the assets represent the proceeds of illegal activities. These include fraud, corruption, theft, breaches of the Public Financial Management Act (PFMA) and money laundering.
The court further found that the properties and vehicle were instruments used to commit money laundering offenses related to the irregular Free State asbestos roofing tender of R230 million.
“This forfeiture order must be distinguished from a forfeiture order in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act, where a conviction is required and civil in nature. Such an order allows the state to recover money or assets obtained from crime after conviction.
“The respondents in the forfeiture application failed to prove an innocent owner defence, as they only raised a mere denial, without credible evidence showing a legitimate source of funding for the acquisition of the assets in question. Therefore, the final forfeiture order was granted in favor of the state,” says Kganyago.