Akash Lachman v The State

The appellant, an auditor employed by the South African Revenue Service (SARS), was convicted of corruption under s 1(1)(b) of the Corruption Act 94 of 1992. Over a period of more than three weeks, an unknown person sent over 200 SMS messages to a taxpayer, Mr Mokoena, offering to make his tax problems "go away" in exchange for payment. The messages demanded escalating sums of money. After becoming suspicious, Mokoena consulted his attorney and a private investigator, who involved the police. A controlled delivery was arranged at the SARS offices, where an envelope containing marked cash was delivered. The appellant collected the envelope and placed it on his supervisor’s desk. During subsequent searches, police discovered cellphones linking the appellant to the incriminating SMS messages. The appellant denied authorship of the SMSs, claimed ignorance of the bribe demand, and alleged that a cellphone had been planted on his desk.

The appeal against conviction was dismissed.

The case clarifies the distinction in South African law between an unlawful trap and a permissible controlled delivery, confirming that evidence is admissible where police merely provide an opportunity for an accused to commit an offence already initiated by them. It also affirms principles governing consent and justification for warrantless searches under the Criminal Procedure Act.