Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
101105_Dramat to Scopa Justifying Closure of Arms Probe

101105_Dramat to Scopa Justifying Closure of Arms Probe

Ratings: (0)|Views: 243|Likes:
Published by delosmagosreyes

More info:

Published by: delosmagosreyes on Jul 18, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/09/2013

pdf

text

original

 
CFaudf ~
PokeCN~ "'' . CP~ Pcdi~aai~
Private Bag
X1500, Silvsrton, 0122
Fav.
I4o:
(0123
046 4400
Your reference
rHE DEPUTY MATlQI4AI.CQIIIIIISSIOI4ER
II4f reference
$2714I2DIRECTORATE FOR PRIORff Y CRIINE
INVESTIGATIONEnquiries
Lt Gert A Oramai
SOUTH AFRICAN POUCE SERVICE
Tel(012j 840 4001
SILVERTON
Honourable Mr T GodiChairperson: Standing Cofnrnittee on Public Accounts (SCOPA)
Parliament
P 0 Box15
CAPE TGNNSTATUS OF THE BAE AND GFC INVESTIGATIONS
First, I would like to express my sincere apology for the fnisunderstanding regarding fnyreply to you on the above-mentioned matter The Directorate tof Priority Crimeinvestigation sent the reply through the required channels of the South African PoliceService ori the 05 Noveffiber 201 0. We only learnt through media reports that the replyhad not reached you.Phase find attached the reply and i would like to assure you that there was no intentionon our part to disrespect your oflice or the person of the Chairlnan of Scopa. Onceagain, we would like to express our humble apology.Kind regards,
L)ELITENANT GENERAL
HEAD." DIRECTORATE FOR PRIORITY CRIINE INYESTIGATIOICDEPUTY NATIONAL COIIINSSIQNER: SOUTH AFRICAN DOUCE SERVICE
A ORAIIAT
 
F4~~A~>~ @~i %~I
cW/ tu«~ 
9LAiar> ~
!~8'k
>»riage ace xtsM
FaX I>io: (012j S>IS 44$
' m.r
rei~r-rtee 
THE DEPU > Y
I>IATION AL
CmrTrji>>ISSIO¹a
DIRECTORATE Foa PRIORITY CRIME
r,;v
>">- - 
e>RE;»
I/>AP$ 
INVESTIGATION
SOUTH tu'RICA!>I PotjCE sERv!CELt GeNt or~at
SII VERTVI>I
t01 2'i 
8>!6 40I!4
Mr T. Godi
Vl
»>>I> 
I>>«> S»>
r «,
»»r
Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCQPA)
p»I 4»~e»!
PQ Box 15
CAPE TOsN
8000
Dear Mr Godi
STATUS OF THE BAE AND GIFC IMVESTlGATtONSYour letter, dated 26 October 2010, in respect of the above rnatter has reference
lt was indicated at the meeting ot' 8 September 2010 that the BAF and GFC matters
were subm~ to the Nai„'onal P!oswtihirg Authority for guidance. The NationalProsecuting Authority ind!Cated that the information at hand does not lay a basis
for 
fo,—,u~",",g ar.y cdmina! ~charges at th!s stage and that without intensive inv~mtigation an
infoITned decision cannot be made.The Hawks indeed took over the EIAE matter from the National Prosecuting Authority.The G-C complain' ."dA Dr Yo ..g c mpfainant, has been laid with the SouthAfrican Police Service after the Hawks became operational on 6 July 2{X}9 Thcallegations i!, the GFC matter are based on dlerent facts> but are related lo the broader
arms deal.
Since the interaction between!nymJf. the NPA and SCOPA, l have requested an
evaluate>onfiona an o Bi35onat and jn>v Loafe po!nt of v!ew o( the two matters and
have been advised of the followingSince 2003, the Directorate of Special Operations (DSO) did not actively pursu the
BAF IOVeStigat!On Ti re
matter WaS On>ly 
tO
«Ome 
erat~>nt reVIVed W!th the Ir!fOrmal
imeraction between the OSCARand the United Kingdom (UK) Sedious Fraud Office {SFO)
whicli j~c" to the
fri>a!isa~on 
of the UK!nvestj<ahor s through a pisa anarrgement. This
arrangement, l am advised, does not assist the South African invesbgation. The South
%1carr Author»>eswe>ra a~~ ., t consulted in conduding
th
arrangement.
 
As a result of the Iong period af time during which the investigation was stagnant, andihe " c af 8.e L! K (BAF) rnatter, there are various effects upon a possible
successful investigation and eventual prosecution of the rnatter There was no continuity
in t",e inve~;on. Wh!!Ist the investigation was ongoing with the DSG before 2003,there was a turnover in the prosecutors, investigators as weII as the forensic auditcape,"„whch means that the rnatter will basicatly need to be reinvestigated fram
scratch. In the meantime. as a result of the time lapse of about ten years sirlce the
a'leged eveVx occurred, some companies allegedly involved in the rnatter da not existanymore, some key witnesses are either abroad, are deceased or are no more in the
pasi5ons i™ the Departments o!' organisatlans where they served, meaning they wouldnat have automatic access to documentation and infarmalion which would be essentialto prepare 'W~entts or assist the investigators. This could to some extent be
overcome through warrants, but even the location of documents might be problematic.
Sa» " pe ons
who frere 
irnpllcate4 as oosslbie suspects are also deceased, includingthe late Min!ster of Defence, Mr J Modise.
ft is also clear in many Instances that requests to render mutual legal assistance +~II be
of a specuI~Jve
nature. Even 
in~atigative efforts in South Africa in many instanceswould bail down to a fishing expedition without any prospect af success This is as a~+suit of the wide-™ng!ng BIWat!Ons and a lack af
sp&clf!c 
Information an theseallegations. Although these factors, viewed in Isolation normally waukl not lead to thestopping of an lnv~tJ~~tion, they need to be weighed against the prospects of an
investigation that wouid lead to prosecution, which seems unlikely. The Investigation
w"uld req«!re mutual legal ~istance on a massive scale into bank!ng accounts forwhich records may not be accessible any more„ in view of banking laws requiring inma„
i
Instanc,os rer~rds to be kept far
five vears 
only,'Letters af request relating to the BAE rMtter, have been approved by a Judge in
chambers ta Lichtenstein, Switzerland, Jersey and the UK, as far back as Dec rnber
ZgrN, and forwarded to the Department of Justice and Gonstitutional Oevelaprrtent. It isunderstood that the letters of request to Jersey, the UK and Switzerland were never
s»b!o+~ 
by the Central Authority in South Africa to the Central Authorities in those
countries, whilst the letter of request to Lichtenstein was sent, but recalled by theCentra> A~ +arity in South Africa. It is understood that the reason for non-submission afthe three letters of request to the Jersey, UK and Swiss authorities and the: recall of theletter of request to Lichtenstein. was the report of the Joint Investigation Teamcomprising of the Auditor General, the National Prosecuting At&any and the Pubhc
protector and 
subrniutted ta 5COPA.I am also infamled that a pmservation order. abtained hy the South African AssetForfeiture Unit in terms of the Prevention Of Organised Crime Act, I 998, was granted byJ dge in chambers,!n res~ of a bank account in Lichtenstein, but abandoned by
the National Prosecuting Authority following submissions made ta the National
pras~~t!ng Authority,.by the respondent. tn respect of the lette!s of request, and thepmservation order, I believe that the Department af Justice and ConstitutionalDevelop!neat and the National Prosecuting Authority respectively, are in a better
posibon to provide more information on these issues should it be required.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->