Business Hijacking

[desA]

Reporting a Tax Crime to SARS

How the Law protects you when you report a tax crime

SARS legislation expressly provides protection to people who report tax crime.

If you wish to report a tax crime to SARS, we will ask you to fill in a suspicious activity report. SARS will endeavour to protect your identity under any circumstance. The only instance where this may change is where your testimony may be required during a criminal trial. In such a case, various means to protect your identity exist in law, and together with you, SARS will engage the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) to ensure these are considered.

If the case may affect national security or testifying presents a grave danger to you, SARS will request the NPA to place you in a witness protection programme which the NPA administers. On rare occasion, SARS has had to provide security to witnesses in form of bodyguards and other measures.

If you wish to report illegal tax practices that you believe have been committed by your employer or a public institution, you will receive protection as a “whistleblower” under the Protected Disclosures Act. In such a case, please keep in mind that when reporting to SARS, you inform us that you are reporting the case in terms of the Protected Disclosures Act No, 26 of 2000.

http://www.sars.gov.za/TargTaxCrime/ReportCrime/Pages/How-the-law-protects-you-when-you-report-a-tax-crime.aspx

REPORT A TAX OR CUSTOMS CRIME

We want to make reporting a tax or customs crime easy for you. If you want to see what we consider a suspicious activity click here. So we’ve even created an online form for you to complete. What do you need to get together before you start?

It’s useful if you have an ID number; Tax Reference number of the person you are reporting. But it’s not essential. Even a car registration number will help
We’ll ask you if the crime is about business tax, personal tax or customs
You decide if you want to remain anonymous
But the form is simple and easy to complete

You need to know that we won’t get back in touch with you with our progress as we can never discuss a person’s tax affairs with anyone else. But rest assured your contribution is vital and we will be looking into it.

Your information is important to us. Reporting a tax crime is the right thing to do.

https://secure.sarsefiling.co.za/AdHocCaseSourcing

[KristiKat]

One business is stealing from another business...

Can people be incorporated in more than one CC at a time?

Can people own more than one company at a time?

And can companies misuse their powers without getting caught by forensic auditing?

Have you tried to get hold of a forensic auditor?

[desA]

CC1 :
Member 1 (financial administrator for CC2, wife of owner of CC2 - role in CC1 of financial administrator);
Member 2 (works for CC2 - workshop);
Member 3 (independent technical specialist, has consulted to CC2 for around 1.5 years)

CC2:
100% owned by husband of Member 1 (of CC1).
Specifically did not want to be a member of CC1 at formation.

Trading figures for CC1 published at various points in early life of CC1. When irregularities in these figures became apparent, Member 3 questioned these. Member 3 had a forensic auditor look at the early figures he'd received. It took him around 1 minute to work out that financial criminality was at work. This was checked with an attorney who was ex Commercial Crime Unit, Durban. The criminality on the published figures is totally clear.

No further trading figures produced. Member 1 unilaterally closes CC1's bank account. When Member 3 presses to see real trading figures for CC1, Members 1 & 2, gang up with CC2's owner & claim that CC1 is dormant & has never traded (in writing) - & that all moneys are owned by CC2. Member 3 is told that he may not visit company premises, under threat of eviction by SAPS.

The criminality & fraud has been lodged with SAPS, Fraud unit & case opened. The evidence is extremely straightforward & simple to understand.

The hijack specialist attorney forms a wall of protection around the gang & will not let the partners talk directly to Member 3. This is a specifically well-tested modus. The gang are simply thugs, who appear to have used similar modus in earlier times, in various guises.

[desA]

Penalties for Fraud in excess of R500,000

I have been informed that the Minimum Sentences Act is being used for fraud cases with prejudice over R500,000. I understand that this compels the judge to hand down a minimum sentence of 15 years for such offenses, without leniency.

The drive is to stamp out rampant corruption & fraud.

[KristiKat]

I don't know where you live,

but in South africa,

the prosecutors are too dumb to handle fraud,

the nolle prosecute them instead.

[desA]

What are the nolle?

[desA]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolle_prosequi

[desA]

Complete the relevant form CoR135.1 (Complaint) and e-mail the form and all substantiating documentation to CoR135.1complaint@cipc.co.za.

If you require any other assistance contact the Complaints and Investigation Department at telephone number 012 3941511/1611.

The irony:
1. E-mail address bounces - incorrect on website, it seems.
2. Phoning listed numbers continually finds no-one at home.
3. Trying main incoming 086 number has one on hold for eternity.

SA at its very best. Land of empty promises, & hot air...

[CLIVE-TRIANGLE]

Rather use an appropriate email address from this brochure

It also contains specific telephone numbers.

[desA]

Clive, Thank you so much. I am in your debt.

[CLIVE-TRIANGLE]

You're welcome, and good luck.

[Sky]

Clive has provided cracker advice on similar matters in the forum - and I was reminded of the Closed Corporation Act Section 42 -

42. Fiduciary position of members

(1) Each member of a corporation shall stand in a fiduciary relationship to the corporation.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the expression "fiduciary relationship", the provisions of subsection (1) imply that a member -

(a) shall in relation to the corporation act honestly and in good faith, and in particular -

(i) shall exercise such powers as he or she may have to manage or represent the corporation in the interest and for the benefit of the corporation; and

[S.42(2)(a)(i) words "he" substituted with "he or she" by clause 4 of Act 25/2005]

(ii) shall not act without or exceed the powers aforesaid; and

(b) shall avoid any material conflict between his or her own interest and those of the corporation, and in particular -

[S.42(2)(b) words "his" substituted with "his or her" by clause 4 of Act 25/2005]

(i) shall not derive any personal economic benefit to which he or she is not entitled by reason of his or her membership of or service to the corporation, from the corporation or from any other person in circumstances where that benefit is obtained in conflict with the interests of the corporation;

[S.42(2)(b)(i) words "he" and "his" substituted with "he or she" and "his or her" by clause 4 of Act 25/2005]

(ii) shall notify every other member, at the earliest opportunity practicable in the circumstances, of the nature and extent of any contract of the corporation; and

(iii) shall not compete in any way with the corporation in its business activities.

(3)

(a) A member of a corporation whose act or omission has breached any duty arising from his or her fiduciary relationship shall be liable to the corporation for -

[S.42(3)(a) words "his" substituted with "his or her" by clause 4 of Act 25/2005]

(i) any loss suffered as a result thereof by the corporation; or

(ii) any economic benefit derived by the member by reason thereof.

(b) Where a member fails to comply with the provisions of subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (b) of subsection (2) and it becomes known to the corporation that the member has an interest referred to in that subparagraph in any contract of the corporation, the contract in question shall, at the option of the corporation, be avoidable: Provided that where the corporation chooses not to be bound a Court may on application any interested person, if the Court is of the opinion that in the circumstances it is fair to order that such contract shall nevertheless be binding on the parties, give an order to that effect, and may take any further order in respect thereof which it may deem fit.

(4) Except as regards his or her duty referred to in subsection (2)(a), any particular conduct of a member shall not constitute a breach of a duty arising from his or her fiduciary relationship to the corporation, if such conduct was preceded or followed by the written approval of all its members where such members were or are cognisant of all the material facts.

[S.42(4) words "his" substituted with "his or her" by clause 4 of Act 25/2005]


This then clearly leaves ground for complaint to the court as prescribed by the Act. The onus would be to prove such by the wronged member.

The main issue is that there should be repair in the outcome or removal of onerous liabilities unjustly incurred.

This is my opinion though - and I agree with what has been said here - is the outcome of expensive litigation worth it? Better partner choices in future?

Bummer indeed.

[desA]

Thank you, Sky, for your very enlightening input.

I'd have to say that, in my matter, so many rules & ethics were broken by the two members who acted as accessories to the external hijack CC, that these are very easy to prove. In many instances, these were clearly fraudulent.

Some very simple rules apply, for instance, when requesting liquidation for a business:
1. Do the members talk to each other? (Communications breakdown => same as incompatibility in marriage);
2. Are all members accorded access to the registered place of work?
3. Are all members accorded access to the business trading figures?

When person responsible for the financial side of the CC unilaterally closes a business bank account, without prior discussion with 3rd member & continually hides behind their attorneys, each time the trading figures are requested, in an attempt to prevent access to the true trading figures - this is fairly straight-forward.

All the other 'frilly-bits' in legalese are the small issues. The large issues are fraud, personal enrichment & poor ethics. Oddly-enough, bulldog attack attorneys tend to focus on the small issues - & willfully ignore the large issues. Obfuscation.

[desA]

Brief report-back
I'm going to place my input on hold at this point, due to present sensitivities. I'll feed back to the thread once matters begin to take cohesive shape & substantive progress is made.

I trust that, after this matter is properly resolved, that other readers who may have found themselves in similar circumstances, will know where to turn. We do have some good folks around.

[xcorporation]

i am just curious. if the friend stayed in a penthouse, why did he share it with his business partners ?
If his fancy car was 'stolen' surely, must have insurance, surely tracking unit, history ....