UNIVERSITY OF KWAZULU-NATAL

SCHOOL OF LAW
POSTGRADUATE DIPLOMA IN FORENSIC INVESTIGATION AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
LAWS6SC – SUBSTANTIVE CRIMINAL LAW
ASSIGNMENT NO. 2 – SECTION A
MRS K HAGGLUND

JEREMY JULIUS - 222120313

QUESTION 1
According to the definition of FRAUD, as per Criminal Law in South Africa, Criminal
Justice, 3rd ed;
Fraud is when a person unlawfully and intentionally makes a misrepresentation to
another person causing prejudice, potential or otherwise.
You can only commit Fraud if the elements are present, such as misrepresentation,
unlawfulness, intent and prejudice.
Clinton Ndlovu was appointed as a Human Resources Officer, who was also responsible for
logging employee overtime on the payroll system. He was in control of any situation when
logging these overtime for employees who did work overtime. For about 18months he
defrauded the system by logging overtime for himself and 7 other female employees. They all
have benefit from these transactions. The 7 females had a duty to report the transactions made
to their personal bank accounts. Section 34 of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt
Activities Act, 2004, states that they have a duty to report the transactions, which they failed
to do so.
The company had a loss of R244000. Clinton Ndlovu had also an opportunity after the first
transaction he made fraudulently. He kept on logging false overtime claims for 18months. This
indicated that he made a misrepresentation to the Finance Department at Head Office to
authorise the payments. By logging the claims he made them believe that he and the 7 female
employees worked overtime. He had the intention to defraud the company.
He also knew that is it was unlawful to make fraudulent claims as he knew the policies. He had
the intent to defraud because he was aware of the falsity of the misrepresentation to the
Finance Department.
I believe that Clinton could be found guilty of the crime Fraud,

 Because all the elements of Fraud was present in the act.

 Section 103 of the CPA 51 of 1977, it is allege that the accused performed an act with
an intent to defraud, it shall be sufficient to allege and to prove that the accused
performed the act with intent to defraud without alleging and proving that it was the
intention of the accused to defraud any particular person, and such a charge need not
mention the owner of any property involved or set forth the details of any deceit.
 Section 245 of the CPA 51 of 1977, If at any criminal proceedings at which an accused
is charged with an offence of which a false representation is an element, it is proved

1
 that the false representation was made by the accused, he shall be deemed, unless
the contrary is proved, to have made such a representation knowing it to be false.
 S v Mngqibisa

QUESTION 2
Jane Mabasa was an ungraduated student who applied for a NSFAS bursary which was
approved. A monthly stipend of R1700 was also to be paid monthly into her personal bank
account, to contribute to food and other needs related to her studies. However an amount of
R17million was accidently paid into her account and not the contract amount of R1700.
Within hours she spend R40000 and within days more than R500000 on clothing and luxury
goods. Eventually when it was discovered by the authorities, her account was frozen.
According to the definition of Theft, It is the unlawful and intentional taking property of another,
which is capable of being stolen, without the persons consent, and appropriating it to
him/herself.
Theft of money, as a form of common law crime. This dilemma relates to the broader question
of the development of the common law to reflect current realities. It is also not always clear
whether courts develop new general principles. Referring to S v Graham, where the court
accepted that an entry in books of account amounted to theft of money, Burchell submits that
it is unclear whether this practice is merely an exception to the general rule demanded by the
realities of modern financial transactions or whether it represents a general principle that
incorporeal things are capable of being stolen.
Jana was supposed to report the mistake to the authorities and made them aware of their
mistake, but failed to do so. She intentionally withheld the information from them. NSFAS
officials are working with millions of applications, and it would have took them a while to
discover their mistake. She knew that it was unlawful and she had the intent to use the money.
She went on a shopping spree within hours and also buying luxuries within days. She was
greedy and did not act as if she needed the items. In other words she had been inspired by
greed, not need. She had no remorse and didn’t think of other students that needed the money
too, to cover their expenses. She repeatedly spend money knowing that it not belong to her.
The same applies: she should’ve contacted her bank as soon as possible to advise it of the
error. And once she have been asked for her consent to reverse the payment to its rightful
owner, she should’ve agree. Some people feel they should be allowed to keep money paid
into their account, but in general they should return money that does not belong to them.
She planned on how to spend the money, because she have done so for several days. She
was also rushing against time to spend the money, before its spoiled and come to an end. The
money was not spend on essential items to stay alive, but to clothes and luxuries. She failed
to report the error and embarked on a spending spree.
I believe that Jane will be found guilty of Theft, because all the elements of Theft was present
in the act she committed. She knew it was unlawful and she had the intent to use the money
for her own cause. She failed to report the mistake to the relevant authorities. She acted on
greed and not on need.
S v Mani

2
QUESTION 3
The difference between fraud and forgery is that fraud is completed once the misrepresentation
has come to the notice of the victim and forgery is completed once the document is forged.
The illegal action consists in any of the actions.
Fraud denotes any kind of practice of dishonesty of a person or a company for financial
advantage. It is generally considered a well-thought-out crime by the law. On the other hand,
forgery is essentially concerned with a produced or altered object.
Fraud is the crime of deceiving another, which may be performed through the use of objects
obtained through forgery. Forgery is a common technique in fraud schemes, where the
fraudster uses forged documents in order to gain access to information or materials they should
not truly have access to.