The appellant, a senior banker employed as a relationship manager at Nedcor Bank, was convicted in the Johannesburg Magistrates’ Court on ten counts of fraud and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. His mandate to approve credit had been withdrawn in October 1998, after which all credit applications had to be approved by the bank’s credit department. During 1999, ten letters of credit were issued by Nedcor’s Global Business Centre in favour of Moonstar Commerce & Industry (Pty) Ltd, some for the benefit of Emperor Fisher International. The appellant had signed the applications in the space marked ‘approved’, but had not attached motivations, and the credit department had not approved the applications. Global issued the letters of credit unaware of the withdrawal of relationship managers’ mandates. Moonstar later defaulted and was liquidated, causing Nedcor financial loss. The state alleged that by signing the applications the appellant fraudulently misrepresented that he had authority and that credit procedures had been complied with. The appellant contended that he signed only to allow processing and did not intend to bypass the credit department or misrepresent his authority.
The appeal was upheld. The appellant’s convictions and sentences on all ten counts of fraud were set aside.
The case reaffirms the strict requirements for proving fraud in South African criminal law, particularly the necessity of proving both the mechanics of the alleged misrepresentation and the accused’s intention to defraud. It underscores the principle that negligence or procedural irregularity, without proof of intent, is insufficient for a fraud conviction, and reinforces the standard that an accused must be acquitted if their version is reasonably possibly true.