Johannesburg - As the fraud trial against the two alleged Gupta associates resumed in the Pretoria Magistrate’s Court, the defence counsel rubbished the testimony of State witnesses owing to the fact that they were appointed only after the transactions took place.
As the trial looking into the R37.7 million tax fraud case involving two Gupta brothers’ associates regarding the failed Free State Estina project resumed in court, the State called two witnesses, namely a manager at the International Trade Administration Commission of South Africa (ITAC) as well as an investigator from the South African Reserve Bank (SARB).
The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) indicated that Estina submitted customs clearance documents in support of a VAT refund claim.
However, according to the prosecuting authority, the customs declaration was scrutinised, whereupon the declared value of more than R37.7m for a ‘new’ pasteurisation plant was suspected to be excessively high.
The customs clearance submissions relate to nine shipping containers, 13m long, that carried different dairy equipment purposefully from Gateway Limited in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
It is alleged that Gateway was used and controlled by the Guptas as a conduit to launder money and extract funds from South Africa.
The State alleged that the overstated or inflated value was intentionally and unlawfully used by Estina and its sole director, Kamal Vasram, to launder funds from South Africa, to the prejudice of the taxpaying public in general.
As per the charge sheets dated December 5, 2013, and March 18, 2014, Vasram and his co-accused, Saliesh Indurjeeth, instructed the clearing agent UTi South Africa (Pty) Ltd to electronically submit a bill of entry for importation in the prescribed form as required.
By doing so, they declared to the South African Revenue Service (Sars) that the goods imported were new and valued at $3 4488 00 which amounted to R37 718 634.00.
However, this was contrary to the facts, as the accused allegedly knew that the goods were not new equipment but instead second-hand or used goods, for which they had not applied, nor were they in possession of a valid permit to import second-hand goods.
The goods originated from the Republic of India and were in fact valued at $385 621, thus amounting to an overstated and inflated value of $3 063 179.
Vasram and Indurjeeth face charges of fraud, contravention of Section 54 (1)(A) of the International Trade Administration Act, and contravention of Regulation 22 of the Exchange Control Act.
Jaap Cilliers SC, on behalf of Vasram, stressed to the court during the testimony of Jarina Cornel Bekker, the investigator from the South African Reserve Bank, yesterday that the facts relevant to the case before the court occurred in 2013, when she had nothing to do with the reserve bank.
He shared a similar sentiment following the testimony of Sanjay Devnath, a manager from Itac.
“The objective facts appear to me that, at the time the transaction occurred, you were not employed at your current position. Your expression of views is purely on the basis of a theoretic situation because you do not have personal knowledge of the transactions,” Cilliers said.
The matter resumes tomorrow.
The Star