RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.76

CORPORATE CRIME AND THE CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF
CORPORATE ENTITIESSadhana Singh*

I. INTRODUCTION
While the 1990s was a decade of booming markets and booming profits, it was also a decade of rampant
corporate criminality. There is an emerging consensus among corporate criminologists, which is that corporate
crime and violence inflicts far more damage on society than all street crime combined. Heightened concern
around this issue has been demonstrated by a number of recent conferences on commercial crime, staged by
the Republic of South Africa (RSA)1 through its South African Police Service (SAPS) and organized business. A
declaration of “serious economic offences” as a “priority crime” is significant, since the seriousness (or not)with which certain crimes are regarded is reflected in the resources which the state allocates to policing them.

II. BACKGROUND
Corporate crime is said to cause business failure and disintegrate economies. The National Prosecuting
Authority (NPA) Act, 1998 (Act No. 32 of 1998) provides that all Serious Economic Offences must be
investigated. This has led to the opening of Specialized Commercial Court Centres in the RSA, a clear
expression of the South African Government’s commitment to an effective criminal justice system thatdelivers swift, reliable and fair justice and creates confidence among investors, local and international, thebusiness sector and the general public. The most important motivations for the establishment of thespecialized courts relate to the possibility that these institutions might make the administration of justicemore efficient and thereby encourage the reporting of corporate crime. In this regard, the most importantcharacteristics of such courts is their capacity to attract and utilize persons with appropriate expertise in theprosecution (in the case of criminal trials) and adjudication of matters in which such specialized knowledge isrequired for the most effective processing of cases. Thus both the prosecution and judiciary will become
evermore familiar with complex factual issues, as well as with established law and procedure. This should
lead to speedier and, therefore, less expensive proceedings for the state and litigants.

* Senior Superintendent, Partnership Policing, South African Police Service, South Africa.
1 Abbreviations used in this paper:

AFU

Asset Forfeiture Unit

DSO

Directorate of Special Investigations

FICA

Financial Intelligence Centre Act

ICD

Independent Complaints Directorate

NIA

National Intelligence Agency

NPA

National Prosecuting Authority

PGI

Prosecution Guided Investigation

POCA

Prevention of Organized Crime Act

RSA

Republic of South Africa

SAPS

South African Police Service

SAQA

South African Qualifications Framework

SARS

South African Revenue Service

84

137TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

III. FOCUSED DISCUSSIONS ON CORPORATE CRIME AND
THE CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF CORPORATE ENTITIES
A. Liability of Legal Persons and Criminalization in Relation to Corporate Crime
1. Liability of Legal Persons(i) Current Situation of Criminal Liability of Corporate Entities in the RSA
Since the Companies Act was enacted in 1973, fundamental legal developments have taken place in the
RSA. The most important change was the adoption of the Constitution in 1996. No area of South African law
can be analysed or evaluated without recourse to the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the country.
The Bill of Rights, as provided for in Chapter 2 of the Constitution, constitutes a cornerstone of democracyin the RSA. It enshrines the rights of all people in the country and affirms the democratic values of humandignity, equality and freedom. It also regulates the relationship between economic citizens and thus may
have fundamental implications for company law.
Section 332 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 provides for the prosecution of corporations andmembers of associations. Section 332 (1) thereof provides: For the purpose of imposing upon a corporatebody criminal liability for any offences, whether under any law or at common law – any act performed, withor without a particular intent, by or on instructions or with permissions, express or implied, given by adirector or servant of that corporate body; and the omission, with or without a particular intent, of any act
which ought to have been but was not performed by or on instructions given by a director or servant of thatbody corporate in the exercise of his powers or in the performance of his duties as such director or servant
or in furthering or endeavouring to further the interest of that corporate body, shall be deemed to have been
performed (and with the same intent, if any) by that corporate body or, as the case may be, to have been anomission (and with the same intent, if any) on the part of that corporate body.

(ii) Legal Framework of Criminal, Civil and Administrative Sanction
Company law provides the legal basis for one of the most important institutions organizing andgalvanizing the economy, namely, corporate business entities. The decision of the Department of Trade andIndustry in the RSA to review and modernize company law in this country was based on the need to bringour law in line with international trends and to reflect and accommodate the changing environment forbusiness, both in the RSA and globally. The current framework of South African company law is built onstrong foundations, after much review, and new developments in the country. Criminal, civil andadministrative sanctions are regulated and administered within the parameters of criminal law and theframework as set by the Criminal Procedure Act. The detailed legislative, regulatory and procedural
frameworks dictate police action, and every specialized unit has a legal mandate and a legal framework
within which to operate.
(iii) Various Kinds of Criminal Liability
Schedule A, Criminal Law (Snyman) indicates the construction of criminal liability. This will be illustrated
by means of a diagram as shown below. The diagram below represents a standard crime. There are
exceptions to this standard model. Strict liability crimes dispense with the requirement of culpability. The
reason why compliance with the principle of legality is indicated with a dotted line is the following: if aperson’s liability for a well-known crime such as murder or theft has to be determined, it is so obvious thatsuch a crime is recognized in our law that it is usually a waste of time to enquire whether there has been
compliance with the requirement of legality. The reason why the box containing the words “Compliance withdefinitional elements” is further subdivided with a dotted line, is the following: crimes may according totheir definitional elements be classified or subdivided in different ways.

85

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.76

Criminalliabilityis
basedon:

Compliancewithprincipleoflegality+

Commission

Formally
definedcrimes

Factualcausation

conditiosinequanonOR+

1(Voluntary)
Conduct

OR+

2
Compliancewith
definitional
elements

Omission

Materiallydefinedcrimes(whichrequirecausation)

Legalcausation

Policyconsiderations

Abilityto
appreciate
wrongfulnessof
conduct+

3
Unlawfulness

Criminal
capacity+

Abilitytoconduct
oneselfinaccordancewith
appreciationofwrongfulnessof+Formsof
culpability

Intentio

Unconscious++ofdefinitional
elements

Dolus
directus

OR

NegligenceOR

Knowledg

of
act

4
Culpability+

OR

Conscious
negligence

Will

Dolus
indirectus

+

OR

of
unlawfulness

Dolus
eventuali

2. Criminalization in Relation to Corporate Crimes
It is sometimes debated whether or not it is desirable to punish an entity such as a corporate body which
is not, like a natural person, capable of thinking for itself or of forming any intention of its own. It issometimes said that the idea of blameworthiness inherent in the concept of culpability presupposes personal
responsibility - something which an abstract entity such as a corporate body lacks. The corporate body has
no physical existence and does not think for itself or act on its own; its thinking and acting are done for it by
its directors or servants, and it is argued that it is these persons of flesh and blood who ought to bepunished. On the other hand, there is in practice a great need for this form of liability, especially today when
there are so many corporate bodies playing such an important role in society. It is very difficult to track down
the individual offender within a large organization; an official can easily shift blame or responsibility onto
somebody else. In any event, other branches of the law, such as the law of contract, acknowledge that a
corporate body is capable of thinking and of exercising a will. This form of liability is especially necessary
where failure to perform a duty specifically imposed by statute on a corporate body (for example the duty todraw up and submit certain returns or reports annually), constitutes a crime.
Holding a corporate body criminally liable raises certain procedural questions such as who must be
summoned, who must stand in the dock, who must act on the corporate body’s behalf during the trial, andwhat punishment must be imposed. In the RSA the matter has been regulated by statute since 1917. The
original Section 384 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act 31 of 1917, has been replaced by othersections, and at the moment the matter is governed by the provisions of Section 332 of the Criminal
Procedure Act 51 of 1977. Section 332(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act further provides that a director orservant of a corporate body may be convicted of a crime committed by the corporate body, unless he or she
can prove that he or she did not take part in the commission of the crime and that he or she could not have
prevented it. However, the provisions of the Constitution of the RSA, read with various other laws, must be
taken into consideration, as caution should be taken to avoid a reverse onus which could infringe thepresumption of innocence in section 35(3)(h) of the Constitution and that this violation may not be justified
in terms of the limitation clause in section 36(1) of the Constitution.
Statutory offences in terms of the Companies Act have been dealt with in the context of the acts
constituting the offences. The same has been done in respect of the penal provisions. The penalties for therespective offences which are stated in section 441(1) have been dealt with in the context of the offences
concerned. Section 441(2) is of particular importance in that it provides that the court convicting any person
or company for failing to perform any act required under the Act may not only impose a penalty but may

86137TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

order the person or company to perform that act within such period as the court may determine. Criminal
liability has been attached to certain general acts relating to the falsification of records and the suppressionof records, documents and other evidence.

B. Current Situation and Issues Concerning Corporate Crime in the RSA
Within the Department of Justice, a number of control measures have been introduced to limit theincidence of corporate crime. The SAPS and the National Intelligence Agency (NIA) are assisting the
Department of Home Affairs to set up various corporate crime units, such as the anti-corruption unit.
Measures aimed at strengthening the Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD) are under way. The NIA is
assisting the ICD in its anti-corruption tasks. The SAPS see the immediate challenge as mobilizing
resources to make corporate crime more dangerous and less profitable. Removing the profits of crime, interalia through the forfeiture of assets, is attaining widespread priority. South Africa’s eagerly awaited Money
Laundering Act will come into effect later this year, thereby recognizing that the driving force behindcommercial crime internationally is drug money and its laundering. With the assistance of the Reserve Bankand financial institutions, this legislation should prove an effective tool in combating illegal financialtransactions.
The success of the SAPS in combating corporate crimes will be indicated by: a decline in the incidence ofcorporate crime; a rise in the percentage of recorded cases; and a marked rise in the number of successfulprosecutions. These objectives can be achieved through: the development of codes of conduct, andprevention and standard response procedures to corporate crime; promotion of principles of good businesspractice and good governance; and rallying of public support for an anti-corruption ethic. Further, numerous
conferences have also been held on commercial crime facilitated by organized business and the SAPS.
Corporate crime, sometimes referred to as serious economic offences or commercial crime, has also been
declared a number one priority crime in terms of the SAPS Strategic Plan 2005-2010 under the domain oforganized crime.
Organized crime is a concept that appears to have established itself in criminology, although it has not yet
received universal legislative acceptance or wide judicial recognition. However, it is not in serious disputethat organized crime is a global challenge. It is also accepted that linkages have long been established among
criminals working in different countries in the region and beyond.
The RSA has embarked on an Organized Crime and Money Laundering programme dedicated to studying
trends in the incidence of organized crime in Southern Africa since 1997. The programme strives tocontribute to building the capacity of policy-makers and law enforcement agencies in the region to combat
organized crime.
The conventional view is that money laundering follows a traceable pattern, comprising various stages.
In reality, not every act of money laundering neatly follows a pattern (Institute for Security Studies).
Since 2002 the Institute for Security Studies in the RSA has been studying the nature and scale of money
laundering in east and Southern Africa. The findings of the study are periodically published in newsletters,
surveys and monographs. The programme is committed to continue to assist state and non-state institutions
to detect and control money laundering in the region.
The RSA has developed a comprehensive legal structure to combat money laundering. Currently, themain statutes are the Prevention of Organized Crime Act 1998 (POCA) and the Financial Intelligence Centre
Act 2001 (FICA). The financial intelligence unit and other supervisory and investigative bodies appear
adequately staffed and genuinely committed to implementing the new system.
Additionally, the RSA has a number of agencies that investigate and prosecute cases involving money
laundering. The NPA provides a national framework for prosecutions. Within the NPA, the Directorate ofSpecial Operations (DSO) investigates and prosecutes a range of more serious cases. The NPA’s Asset
Forfeiture Unit (AFU) supports the police and other law enforcement structures in all aspects of forfeiture.
The SAPS investigates criminal activity generally and has allocated the responsibility for investigating
money laundering to specific units. The South African Revenue Service (SARS), which includes the
Customs Service, is responsible for revenue collection and the investigation of tax evasion and evasion of

87

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.76

customs duties and works closely with law enforcement agencies on money laundering matters.

C. Issues Concerning Investigations
1. Specialized Investigative Authorities and Training Methods for Investigators
The RSA has developed a comprehensive legal structure to combat corporate crime. The statutes include
the Prevention of Organized Crime Act 1998 (POCA), and the Financial Intelligence Centre Act 2001
(FICA). Some of the specialized investigative authorities (as mentioned at 2. infra) include: SAPS, NIA, NPA,
AFU, SARS etc.
In the RSA, the Detective Learning Program which is registered at the South African Qualifications
Authorities (SAQA) is mandatory, prior to the offering of more specialized training. Also, the RSA has
embarked on an Organized Crime and Money Laundering Program dedicated to studying trends in theincidence of organized crime in Southern Africa since 1997. The programme strives to contribute to building
the capacity of policy-makers and law enforcement agencies (not exclusive to the SAPS) in the region tocombat organized crime.
Additionally, investigators already have adequate legal means to obtain information and evidence
regarding alleged offences. Investigators also have sufficient legal tools for a wide range of investigativetechniques.
2. Co-operation Between Investigative Authorities at the State Level
The investigative authorities include the SAPS, the Commercial/Organized Crime Unit, the DSO, theSexual Offences Unit (SOCA), the Specialized Tax Unit, the Asset Forfeiture Unit and the Special
Commercial Crimes Unit. These units form part of the Integrated Case Flow Management Steering
Committee which meets bi-monthly to discuss the various issues around crimes. A further co-operation“safety-net” is the Prosecution Guided Investigations (PGI). PGI is still under development for formal
implementation but has been informally practiced for many years now. This, in short, allows the prosecutors
and all key parties to form an integrative approach and to become involved in investigations much earlier and
not when the case is ready for court.
3 Acquisition of Information on Corporate Crime
A wide array of legislation regulates the acquisition of information, including the Criminal Procedure Act,criminal law statutes, the Constitution of the Republic, the SAPS Act, etc. There are specific procedures andtechniques under this legislation which guide a crime scene from the inception of a complaint, to the mass
media, dealing with informants and the various types of protection our law offers. It must be mentioned thatin the RSA, every informer is treated with the utmost confidentially and the identity of such informers isprotected. Special broadcast and media laws are also available in the RSA which then governs mass media. In
the SAPS, we have a special communication department which handles all media matters, knowing thatsome matters could be of a sensitive nature. Additionally, South African law makes abundant provision forthe protection not only of whistleblowers but all types of witnesses, e.g. an employee employed in a large cooperation who is being threatened by its management can also seek protection under the RSA law.
4. Material and Electronic Evidence
The Interception and Monitoring Prohibition Act, Act 127 of 1992 covers all aspects, including but notlimited to, “identifying, obtaining and preserving; obtaining relevant computer data and recovering of deleted
data; forensic analysis and other” in terms of the investigation and should be read as such.
The Act was enacted to prohibit the interception of certain communications and the monitoring of certain
conversations or communications; to provide for the interception of postal articles and communications andfor the monitoring of conversations or communications in the case of a serious offence or if the security of
the RSA is threatened; and to provide for matters connected therewith.
For purposes of the investigation of crime, an investigator who executes a direction or assists with theexecution of a direction may at any time enter upon any premises in order to install, maintain or remove a
monitoring device, or to intercept or take into possession a postal article, or to intercept any communication,or to install, maintain or remove a device by means of which any communication can be intercepted, for the88

137TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

purposes of this Act. Having specified such, one must also take into consideration the sovereign law of theland, the Constitution, and act accordingly.
5. Measures to Obtain Statement Evidence(i) Techniques of Interrogation
The RSA judicial system and the SAPS in particular make use of an interview system which is registeredby the South African Qualifications Authority as “Conduct an Investigative Interview”. Investigativeinterviews are conducted through a systematic search for the truth in respect of a crime or an alleged crime.
The investigative interview system uses sound and structured methodology to extract the maximum
possible sum of information from a victim, informer, witnesses or suspect, allowing for the successfulplanning, conducting and concluding of an interview with a victim, informer, witness or suspect utilizing the
P.E.A.C.E. model. The acronym P.E.A.C.E. stands for: P = Planning and Preparation, E = Engage andExplain, A = Account Phase, C = Closure and E = Evaluation of all information. Additionally, under section
213 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Act 51 of 1977, proof of a written statement must exist and the statement
must comply with the provisions of consent.“The statement shall purport to be signed by the person who
made it, and shall contain a declaration by such person to the effect that it is true to the best of his
knowledge and belief and that he made the statement knowing that, if it were tendered in evidence, hewould be liable to prosecution if he willfully stated in it anything which he knew to be false or which he did
not believe to be true. If the person who makes the statement cannot read it, it shall be read to him before
he signs it, and an endorsement shall be made thereon by the person who so read the statement to the effectthat it was so read.”(ii) Plea Bargaining
According to Section 106 of the Criminal Procedure Act, “when an accused pleads to a charge he may
plead: that he is guilty of the offence charged or of any offence of which he may be convicted on the charge;or that he is not guilty; or that he has already been convicted of the offence with which he is charged; or that
he has already been acquitted of the offence with which he is charged; or that he has received a free pardon
under section 327 (6) from the State President for the offence charged; or that the court has no jurisdiction
to try the offence; or that he has been discharged under the provisions of section 204 from prosecution forthe offence charged; or that the prosecutor has no title to prosecute; or that the prosecution may not be
resumed or instituted owing to an order by a court under section 342A(3)(c). Two or more pleas may bepleaded together except that a plea of guilty may not be pleaded with any other plea to the same charge. An
accused shall give reasonable notice to the prosecution of his intention to plead a plea other than the plea of
guilty or not guilty, and shall in such notice state the ground on which he bases his plea, provided that therequirement of such notice may be waived by the attorney-general or the prosecutor, as the case may be,
and the court may, on good cause shown, dispense with such notice or adjourn the trial to enable such notice
to be given.
(iii) Immunity
Various types of immunity exist. In RSA the State President may issue a free pardon under section 327(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Also, the prosecution may not be resumed or instituted owing to an orderby a court under section 342A(3)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
6. Special Investigative Techniques(The Criminal Procedure Act, Act 51 of 1971, section 252A covers all aspects, including but not limited
to, “electronic and other forms of surveillance; undercover operations; other special investigativetechniques and use of special investigative techniques at the international level” in terms of theinvestigation, and should be read as such).
The section of the Act was enacted to authorize the use of traps and undercover operations and for the
purposes of admissibility of evidence. However, the law and its limitations and the Constitution of the RSA
should also be considered when applying this section.
“Any law enforcement officer, official of the State or any other person authorized thereto for such purpose(hereinafter referred to in this section as an official or his or her agent) may make use of a trap or engage inan undercover operation in order to detect, investigate or uncover the commission of an offence, or to89

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.76

prevent the commission of any offence, and the evidence so obtained shall be admissible if that conduct does
not go beyond providing an opportunity to commit an offence: Provided that where the conduct goes beyond
providing an opportunity to commit an offence a court may admit evidence so obtained subject to subsection(3). If a court in any criminal proceedings finds that in the setting of a trap or the engaging in an undercover
operation the conduct goes beyond providing an opportunity to commit an offence, the court may refuse toallow such evidence to be tendered.” When considering the admissibility of the evidence the court shallweigh up the public interest against the personal interest of the accused, having regard for the various
factors, as applicable by this section; e.g. whether, in the absence of the use of a trap or an undercover
operation, it would be difficult to detect, investigate, uncover or prevent its commission, etc.
“An attorney-general may issue general or specific guidelines regarding the supervision and control oftraps and undercover operations, and may require any official or his or her agent to obtain his or her written
approval in order to set a trap or to engage in an undercover operation at any place within his or her area ofjurisdiction, and in connection therewith to comply with his or her instructions, written or otherwise.”

D. Issues Concerning the Prosecution
1. Mitigation, Immunity and Considerations
Mitigation, immunity and considerations can be read together in the investigation and/or prosecution.
The role that mitigating factors surrounding the offender should play is streamlined. It makes little sense toclaim that every offender is different and that this is the reason for having sentence discretion, when most ofthese differences do not affect the sentence at all. A re-evaluation of these subjective features is necessary,and much can be learned from systems where specific reductions of sentence are offered for specificmitigating factors, such as a plea of guilty, remorse, and other subjective factors that really reduce theblameworthiness of the offender. All the purposes of punishment need to be directly related to the interestsof society. If there is no evidence that a particular sentence would deter others, or would individually deter
the offender, then that factor should not be mentioned as a sentencing feature. The same goes for reform andincapacitation. In South Africa we are working on greatly expanding our resources for the execution ofsentences. The courts are also being expanded.
Various types of immunity exist. In the RSA the State President may issue a free pardon under Section
327 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Also, the prosecution may not be resumed or instituted owing to anorder by a court under Section 342A(3)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

E. Issues in Trial and Adjudication
1. Disclosure of Evidence before Trial
The Criminal Procedure Act, Section 217 states that, “Evidence of any confession made by any person in
relation to the commission of any offence shall, if such confession is proved to have been freely andvoluntarily made by such person in his sound and sober senses and without having been unduly influenced
thereto, be admissible in evidence against such person at criminal proceedings relating to such offence:
Provided that a confession made to a peace officer, other than a magistrate or justice or, in the case of apeace officer referred to in Section 334, a confession made to such peace officer which relates to an offencewith reference to which such peace officer is authorized to exercise any power conferred upon him underthat section, shall not be admissible in evidence unless confirmed and reduced to writing in the presence of amagistrate or justice; and that where the confession is made to a magistrate and reduced to writing by him,
or is confirmed and reduced to writing in the presence of a magistrate, the confession shall, upon the mere
production thereof at the proceedings in question be admissible in the evidence against such person if itappears from the document in which the confession is contained that the confession was made by a person
whose name corresponds to that of such person and, in the case of a confession made to a magistrate orconfirmed in the presence of a magistrate through an interpreter, if a certificate by the interpreter appears
on such documents to the effect that he interpreted truly and correctly and to the best of his ability withregard to the contents of the confession and any question put to such person by the magistrate; and bepresumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been freely and voluntarily made by such person in hissound and sober senses and without having been unduly influenced thereto, if it appears from the documentin which the confession is contained that the confession was made freely and voluntarily by such person in
his sound and sober senses and without having been unduly influenced thereto”.

90

137TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

2. Clarification of Disputes before Trial
The Criminal Procedure Act, specifically Section 212B, states that, “if an accused has appointed a legal
adviser and, at any stage during the proceedings, it appears to a public prosecutor that a particular fact orfacts which must be proved in a charge against an accused is or are not in issue or will not be placed in issue
in criminal proceedings against the accused, he or she may, notwithstanding section 220, forward or hand anotice to the accused or his or her legal adviser setting out that fact or those facts and stating that such fact
or facts shall be deemed to have been proved at the proceedings unless notice is given that any such fact will
be placed in issue. The first-mentioned notice contemplated in subsection (1) shall be sent by certified mailor handed to the accused or his or her legal adviser personally at least 14 days before the commencement of
the criminal proceedings or the date set for the continuation of the proceedings or within such shorter
period as may be condoned by the court or agreed upon by the accused or his or her legal adviser and theprosecutor. If any fact mentioned in such notice is intended to be placed in issue at the proceedings, theaccused or his or her legal representative shall at least five days before the commencement or the date set
for the continuation of the proceedings or within such shorter period as may be condoned by the court oragreed upon with the prosecutor deliver a notice in writing to that effect to the registrar or the clerk of thecourt, as the case may be, or orally notify the registrar or the clerk of the court to that effect in which casethe registrar or the clerk of the court shall record such notice. The court may on its own initiative or at therequest of the accused order oral evidence to be adduced regarding any fact contemplated in subsection (4).”
3. Effective Methods of Fact Finding(i) Witness Protection
According to the Witness Protection Act, a witness is any person who is or may be required to give
evidence or has given evidence in any proceedings. Subsections 7(1) and (2) of the Witness Protection Act
provides as follows: “Any witness who has reason to believe that his or her safety or the safety of any related
person is or may be threatened by any person or group or class of persons, whether known to him or her ornot, by reason of his or her being a witness, may report such belief to the investigating officer in theproceedings concerned; any person in charge of a police station; if in prison, a person in charge of the prisonor registered social worker; to the public prosecutor; to any member of the Office for Witness Protection;
and apply in the prescribed manner that he or she or any related person be placed under protection.”(ii) Expert Witnesses
An expert witness is someone who: has education of specialized knowledge; has superior knowledge
regarding a subject; can deduce correct conclusions and can formulate an accurate opinion.
(iii) Others
The Criminal Procedure Act, Section 186, states that “the court may at any stage of criminal proceedings
subpoena or cause to be subpoenaed any person as a witness at such proceedings, and the court shall so
subpoena a witness or so cause a witness to be subpoenaed if the evidence of such witness appears to thecourt essential to the just decision of the case”.
4. Sentencing Process
The Bill of Rights provides for due process, including the right to a fair, public trial within a reasonable
time after being charged, and the right to appeal to a higher court. It also gives detainees the right to state
funded legal counsel when “substantial injustice would otherwise result”. There is a presumption of
innocence for criminal defendants. Judges and magistrates hear criminal cases and determine guilt or
innocence. Magistrates can use assessors in an advisory capacity in bail applications and sentencing.
According to Section 274, a court may, before passing sentence, receive such evidence as it thinks fit inorder to inform itself as to the proper sentence to be passed. The accused may address the court on any
evidence received under subsection (1), as well as on the matter of the sentence, and thereafter theprosecution may likewise address the court. In principle, South African courts employ a discretionary
sentencing system. Within the boundaries set by the legislature, the courts have to exercise a judicial
discretion in order to determine an appropriate sentence, based on a balancing of all the different factors
present in the particular case. This discretion is coupled with a well-established system of appeal against
sentences imposed in all the trial courts, as well as judicial review of sentences imposed in the lowest
courts. No trial court is likely to impose a sentence in the full knowledge that that sentence is likely to bequashed on appeal, with the result that the appellate system influences the outcomes of criminal cases

91

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.76

substantially. The State is also permitted, in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act, to appeal against apatently lenient sentence.

F. International Co-operation
1. Current Situation of, and Problems and Challenges in, the Investigation, Prosecution and Trial of Above
Mentioned Offences, in Relation to International Co-operation
The Republic of South Africa occupies a very important position in the world when it comes to the issue
of international law enforcement co-operation. It is clear that South Africa by virtue of its position inSouthern Africa, Africa and the whole world, is a very important player in the combating of transnational
crime. With its assumption of the Presidency of Interpol, its membership of SARPCCO and its hosting ofFIFA World Cup 2010, it is pertinent that its contribution to international law enforcement co-operation
should move from strength to strength.
The SAPS has played a very important role in conducting joint operations throughout the region by
providing the necessary manpower and logistics throughout.
The SAPS have also made a distinguished contribution in the execution of regional training courses by
providing facilities and other requirements. South Africa has also demonstrated its appreciation of theimportance of strong international law enforcement co-operation by seconding officials to the Interpol
General Secretariat, the Interpol Sub Regional Bureau for Southern Africa and by appointing police attachés
to a number of countries within the region and beyond. Additionally, various structures and processes exist
to co-ordinate security initiatives at both the international and regional (SADC) level.
At the national level the legislative framework for law enforcement co-operation has been boosted
through the enactment of two pieces of legislation in particular: the International Co-operation in Criminal
Matters Act, no.75 of 1996 and The Extradition Amendment Act, no.77 of 1996. National policy frameworksof relevance in considering the priorities for co-operation between state and civil society as well as at theinter-state level include: the National Crime Prevention Strategy 1996 and the National Police Plan and
Policing Priorities and Objectives 1997/8 & 1998/9; and the various Strategic Plans of SAPS, including 2005
to 2010.
2. Problems and Challenges in Obtaining and Providing Mutual Legal Assistance and other Types ofInternational Co-operation
Under the International Co-operation in Criminal Matters Act, 75 of 1996, South Africa has broad powers
to provide a wide range of mutual legal assistance (MLA) related to crime matters, and can provide MLA
even where there is no dual criminality. Thus, it can exchange information relating to most investigations,but cannot assist in seizing certain types of assets.
South Africa has acceded to the 1988 United Nations Convention and has ratified the 1999 UN
Convention, and is working to ratify the 2000 UN Convention. It has also entered into many bilateral treaties
and agreements, either for MLA or at a law enforcement level.

IV. SUMMARY
The President of the Republic of South Africa, Mr Thabo Mbeki, summed it all nicely when the he said
“when in a society the shameless triumph, when the abuser is admired, when principles end and only
opportunism prevails, when the insolent rule and the people tolerate it; when everything becomes corrupt
but the majority is quiet because their slice is waiting ... when so much unite, perhaps it is time to hide
oneself, time to suspend the battle; time to stop being a Quixote (impractically idealistic or fanciful); it istime to review our activities, re-evaluate those around us, and return to ourselves.”

92

137TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERSRESOURCES
RSA. Companies Act, 1973 (Act 61 of 1973).
RSA. Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (Act 108 of 1996).
RSA. Criminal Procedure Act, 1977 (Act 51 of 1977).
RSA. Country Report. Department of Public Service and Administration.
RSA. The Economic Front in the Face of Crime. The Ministry of Finance, Minister Trevor A. Manuel.
28 March 2007. www.npa.gov.za
RSA. International Cooperation in Criminal Matters Act, 75 of 1996.
RSA. National Crime Prevention Strategy 1996. Department of Safety and Security, May 1996.
RSA. National Police Plan and Policing Priorities & Objectives 1997/8 1998/9. South African Police Service.
RSA. National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) Act, 1998 (Act No. 32 of 1998).
RSA. Prevention of Organized Crime Act 1998 (POCA) and the Financial Intelligence Centre Act 2001 (FICA).
RSA. South African Police Service Act, 1995 (Act 13 of 1995).
RSA. Strategic Plan for the South African Police Service 2005 to 2010. Component Strategic
Management Head Office, South African Police Service. ISBN 0-621-35598-4. www.saps.org.za
RSA. The Interception and Monitoring Prohibition Act, Act 127 of 1992.
RSA. Witness Protection Act, 1998 (Act 112 of 1998).
FAFO. “Commerce, Crime, and Conflict: A Comparative Survey of Legal Remedies for Private Sector
Liability for Grave Breaches of International Law and Related Illicit Economic Activities”. FAFO
Report: RSA, 6 September 2006.
Goredama, Charles. Money Laundering in East and Southern Africa: a preliminary overview of thethreat. Institute for Security Studies, Cape Town, South Africa, 1-43, 14 August 2002.
Greenpeace. The Bhopal Principles on Corporate Accountability and Liability, a comprehensive set ofprinciples to ensure that human rights, food sovereignty and clean and sustainable development are
not threatened by corporate activities. August 2002.
Institute for Security Studies (ISS). Documents 2006-2008. www.iss.co.za
Martin Luther University, Germany. Global Economic Crime Survey 2005: The Need for an International
Instrument on Corporate Accountability and Liability, PriceWaterhouseCoopers.
Terblanche, Professor Stephan. Sentencing in South Africa: Lacking in Principle but Delivering on
Justice? Department of Criminal Procedure and Law, University of South Africa, Pretoria. Paper
submitted by delegates at the 18 International Society for the Reform of Criminal Law, Montreal,
Canada, 8-12 August 2004.
South African Company Law for the 21st Century, Guidelines for Corporate Law Reform, Government
Gazette, 23 June 2004 No. 26493, General Notice, Notice 1183 of 2004.
Snyman, CR. Criminal Law, 4 ed. Butterworth, South Africa, 2004.
White-collar Crime in South Africa: A Comparative Perspective, Lala Camerer Researcher, Crime and Policing
Policy Project, Institute for Defense Policy, Published in African Security Review Vol 5 No 2, 1996.
White-Collar Crime in South Africa: an Initial Overview, Lala Camerer, Published in Monograph No 3:
Policing the Transformation, April 1996.

93