Director in court over 'water tanker fraud' in Eastern Cape
Zongamele Zingisa Mafuya, 52, and her company Mafuya Investors appeared in the East London magistrate's court on Tuesday facing charges of fraud, forgery and uttering.
The case stems from a tender advertised by Amatola Water in 2020 for the hiring of water tankers to supply water in various communities.
'There were numerous requirements for a company to qualify for the tender. One postulated that a licensed water tanker must be possessed by the potential service provider,' said Hawks spokesperson W/O Ndiphiwe Mhlakuvana.
'In August 2020 it is alleged that the accused's company, through misrepresentation with the intention to defraud Amatola Water, ostensibly submitted a fictitious vehicle registration certificate purporting to have been supplied by the appropriate licencing authorities from the department of transport, while it was not the case. The submission made the suspect to be a suitable service provider for the tender, then she was awarded a tender to supply water to the areas.'
The company rendered services and submitted invoices for payment to Amatola Water. However, discrepancies were observed during auditing and the matter was referred to the Specialised Investigating Unit and later handed over to the Hawks.
The Hawks established that Amatola Water suffered a loss of more than R216,000.
Mafuya was released on warning and the case was postponed to September 18 to be transferred to the East London regional court.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
43 minutes ago
- IOL News
Witness Admits Contradictions in Rushil Singh Fraud Trial
During the ongoing fraud trial of Rushil Singh, a key Investec employee testifying for the State admitted under cross-examination that Singh was not directly involved in the alleged fraud. This acknowledgment challenges a central aspect of the prosecution's case, which is based on Singh's position as CEO of BIG and assumptions about his knowledge of the loan witness initially testified that the financial guarantee involved in the case was 'cash backed.' However, under questioning by the defense, he conceded that this was incorrect. 'The guarantee was not, in fact, cash backed,' the witness said. He further explained that no contractual agreement explicitly required the guarantee to be backed by cash. 'There was an assumption that the guarantee was cash backed, but there is no documentary proof to support this,' he added. This admission weakens the prosecution's argument that Singh knowingly engaged in fraudulent activity related to the guarantee. The witness also contradicted himself multiple times during cross-examination. When reminded that he was under oath, he responded, 'No man is infallible.' The defence highlighted these inconsistencies to question his credibility. Compounding these issues, the court heard that the original R20 million guarantee issued by Stanbic Bank was initially cash backed and included a conditional clause confirming this security. However, it was Investec that requested the removal of this clause, transforming the guarantee from a secured instrument to an unsecured one. 'The original Stanbic guarantee was secured, but Investec itself asked for the security to be removed,' the defence argued, raising concerns about Investec's internal oversight and defense further emphasized that Singh's involvement is based on presumption rather than evidence. 'The State's own witness conceded Rushil Singh was not directly involved,' the defence said. 'Singh's implication rests solely on the assumption that he must have known about a cash backing requirement, a notion without contractual or factual basis.'Adding to the scrutiny of Investec's role are allegations that several Investec employees received personal benefits from Nishani Singh, related to the loans. The Star has learnt of a new man on the story, referred to as Mr X reportedly received monthly payments of R19,000 through a shell company registered in his name from December 2020 to October 2021 — the period during which the loan agreements were being structured and finalized. Mr X. also received a lump sum payment of R70,000 in August 2020 and may have received a R2 million contribution towards his Pretoria home's construction. After resigning from Investec in June 2021, he joined BIG as a director with a reported monthly salary of R300, other bank employees were linked to questionable benefits. Mr X.2 received two Sandton City gift vouchers worth R10,000 each, given during active loan negotiations. Mr X.2 was given a fully paid Sun City trip in December 2016. The defence suggests these benefits breached banking ethics and could constitute inducements.
TimesLIVE
7 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
Case against driver who allegedly killed teen girl, 13, postponed
The case against a woman accused of ploughing into a group of teenage girls during a coming-of-age ceremony, killing one of them, has been postponed to September 26. Martha Christina, 67, briefly appeared in the Germiston magistrate's court on Wednesday. She faces a culpable homicide charge and is out on R5,000 bail. The state asked for further investigations into the death of Thando Pretty Mahlangu, 13.. Part of the information the state is to gather are photos and video footage of the incident. On 28 June, Christina allegedly drove into the crowd in Dinwiddie, Germiston, where girls had gathered for a traditional ceremony at the Khumalo home. Mahlangu's family said they had hoped Wednesday's court appearance would see the charges upgraded to murder. 'The pictures and video the state wants to retrieve were always part of the docket and were given to police,' said family spokesperson Mzwandile Soyaya . 'They also asked for the hospital report, postmortem and scene reconstruction, which were submitted. Why is this information still not before court? Is this a delay tactic or what?'
The Star
7 hours ago
- The Star
Investec Witness Admits Contradictions in Rushil Singh Fraud Trial
During the ongoing fraud trial of Rushil Singh, a key Investec employee testifying for the State admitted under cross-examination that Singh was not directly involved in the alleged fraud. This acknowledgment challenges a central aspect of the prosecution's case, which is based on Singh's position as CEO of BIG and assumptions about his knowledge of the loan witness initially testified that the financial guarantee involved in the case was 'cash backed.' However, under questioning by the defense, he conceded that this was incorrect. 'The guarantee was not, in fact, cash backed,' the witness said. He further explained that no contractual agreement explicitly required the guarantee to be backed by cash. 'There was an assumption that the guarantee was cash backed, but there is no documentary proof to support this,' he added. This admission weakens the prosecution's argument that Singh knowingly engaged in fraudulent activity related to the guarantee. The witness also contradicted himself multiple times during cross-examination. When reminded that he was under oath, he responded, 'No man is infallible.' The defence highlighted these inconsistencies to question his credibility. Compounding these issues, the court heard that the original R20 million guarantee issued by Stanbic Bank was initially cash backed and included a conditional clause confirming this security. However, it was Investec that requested the removal of this clause, transforming the guarantee from a secured instrument to an unsecured one. 'The original Stanbic guarantee was secured, but Investec itself asked for the security to be removed,' the defence argued, raising concerns about Investec's internal oversight and defense further emphasized that Singh's involvement is based on presumption rather than evidence. 'The State's own witness conceded Rushil Singh was not directly involved,' the defence said. 'Singh's implication rests solely on the assumption that he must have known about a cash backing requirement, a notion without contractual or factual basis.'Adding to the scrutiny of Investec's role are allegations that several Investec employees received personal benefits from Nishani Singh, related to the loans. The Star has learnt of a new man on the story, referred to as Mr X reportedly received monthly payments of R19,000 through a shell company registered in his name from December 2020 to October 2021 — the period during which the loan agreements were being structured and finalized. Mr X. also received a lump sum payment of R70,000 in August 2020 and may have received a R2 million contribution towards his Pretoria home's construction. After resigning from Investec in June 2021, he joined BIG as a director with a reported monthly salary of R300, other bank employees were linked to questionable benefits. Mr X.2 received two Sandton City gift vouchers worth R10,000 each, given during active loan negotiations. Mr X.2 was given a fully paid Sun City trip in December 2016. The defence suggests these benefits breached banking ethics and could constitute inducements.
