Bobroff and Another v The National Director of Public Prosecutions

The appellants, Ronald Bobroff and Darren Bobroff, were senior attorneys and directors of a Johannesburg law firm specialising in personal injury litigation, often on a contingency fee basis. Allegations arose from around 2010 that the firm charged clients inflated fees exceeding the limits imposed by the Contingency Fees Act 66 of 1997. Disciplinary proceedings were instituted by the Law Society, supported by a whistle-blower affidavit alleging serious financial impropriety. In March 2016, the appellants left South Africa for Australia shortly before arrest warrants were issued and were later disbarred. Large sums of money held in bank accounts in Israel in their names (approximately R99 million at the time) were frozen following suspicious transaction reports and an Interpol Red Notice. The National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) obtained a preservation order under s 38 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998 (POCA) and subsequently a forfeiture order under s 50, contending that the funds were proceeds of unlawful activities committed in South Africa. The appellants challenged the High Court’s jurisdiction and disputed that the funds constituted proceeds of unlawful activities.

The appeal was largely dismissed. The forfeiture order was upheld subject to amendments: two specified amounts were excluded from forfeiture, and the High Court’s order was amended to remove the direct instruction to Israeli banks, replacing it with an order that the balance of the proceeds be paid into the Criminal Assets Recovery Account via appropriate mechanisms. The appellants were ordered to pay costs, including costs of two counsel.

The case is a leading authority on the extraterritorial reach of civil forfeiture under POCA. It confirms that South African courts may order forfeiture of proceeds of unlawful activities located abroad and clarifies how jurisdiction and effectiveness are satisfied through international cooperation statutes. The judgment strengthens the State’s ability to combat organised and transnational financial crime by depriving offenders of illicit gains irrespective of where they are held.