STEINHOFF Reinkarnation

 

 

https://www.iol.co.za/business-report/economy/charges-should-have-been-brought-against-jooste-by-now-says-corruption-watch-0686f31f-d871-421c-ad7b-08a23552419b

IT IS six years since the former CEO of Steinhoff International, Markus Jooste, stepped down from the firm in December 2017 after massive accounting fraud came to light, and yet he is still not behind bars.

Corruption Watch said yesterday that South Africa should do a lot more to translate rhetoric about fighting corruption involving high-profile cases such as the masterminds of the Steinhoff scandal into successful prosecutions and penalties.

The collapsed Steinhoff has been the most significant and high-profile corruption case to rock corporate South Africa in recent years. The Johannesburg and Germany dual-listed multinational company was liquidated in October this year after investigations showed that it had overstated profits over several years in an accounting scandal.

However, there has been no criminal action against Jooste, who resigned from the company after the scam. The absence of formal criminal or civil charges against Jooste has raised concerns about South Africa’s commitment and sincerity to fighting high-level corruption in the corporate and private sector.

Karam Singh, the executive director at Corruption Watch, told Business Report by phone yesterday: “One would have expected to see charges by now ... The JSE and others have successfully acted against Jooste and I think there's still a strong expectation from the South African public that we see some accountability for what happened to Steinhoff.”

More on this

• WATCH: ‘Steinheist’ looks at the biggest corporate scam in SA history

• Markus Jooste’s latest appeal denied, now he must pay R15 million fine

• Steinhoff to be liquidated, will cease to exist

The JSE fined Jooste about R15 million for violations against its listing rules and for falsifying financial statements for Steinhoff. Jooste was also barred from holding an office in listed companies for the next 20 years. The South Africa Reserve Bank (SARB) in 2021 seized assets worth up to R1.4 billion from Steinhoff and his family trust.

The actions of Jooste and other executives at Steinhoff crushed the company after it lost nearly 100% of its market value in the aftermath of audit company PwC refusing to sign off on its financials in 2017.

Furthermore, deeper audits unearthed that the company had declared $7bn (R132bn) in fraudulent and irregular earnings on the company’s balance sheets for the period 2009 to 2016.

While the SARB and JSE have acted against Jooste, there have been no criminal or civil charges preferred against the former Steinhoff executive. This was now tainting the South African justice delivery system, especially on cases involving high-profile corporate and private sector leaders.

Corruption Watch said the South African fight against corruption, especially in the private sector, was “very uneven” as there had been fewer successful high-profile corruption cases brought to court.

“I think we haven't seen a lot of successful cases, high-profile cases emanating from the private sector. There are a lot of cases of allegations that have been floating around about prominent South African business people involved in a foreign bribery in Zimbabwe and other places,” said Singh.

He added: “Until we see cases enrolled and successfully prosecuted, we’re going to be left with these doubts about, I don't want to use the word seriousness, but about the ability to translate the rhetorical commitment to a concrete action. We need to start seeing some results.”

It was, however, difficult to pinpoint exactly where the Jooste case has stalled, given the lengthy period that has lapsed and the extent and reach of the mutual legal assistance which must be taking place between South Africa and Germany.

Other analysts said the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) should expedite the process to prosecute Jooste and bring to finality one of the biggest corporate and accounting scandals to rock South Africa.

Others pointed out that the NPA was constrained in terms of the capacity to go after Jooste, given the cross-continent nature of efforts required to roll out prosecution.

“It’s really a big issue around assessment of the NPA and their prospects of success as well as their capacity to run the case.”

BUSINESS REPORT

Related Topics:

Steinhoff2023South AfricaFraudCorruptionbusinessFinance

 

 

https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/niedersachsen/...B2Z8FuUpGh-BXDWuCavaQ  

Polizei erklärt ehemaligen Steinhoff-Chef Jooste für tot
Die südafrikanische Finanzaufsicht bestrafte ihn, ein deutsches Gericht erließ nach dem Steinhoff-Skandal einen Haftbefehl. Nun meldet die Polizei seinen Tod.

Johannesburg. Der in einen Bilanzskandal beim Möbelkonzern Steinhoff verwickelte ehemalige Vorstandschef Markus Jooste ist nach Angaben der südafrikanischen Polizei tot.

Der 63-Jährige sei am Donnerstagnachmittag mit einer Schusswunde am Kopf kurz nach Einlieferung in ein Krankenhaus in der Küstenstadt Hermanus verstorben, sagte ein Polizeisprecher der Deutschen Presse-Agentur. Auch die Nationale Strafverfolgungsbehörde NPA bestätigte Joostes Tod.

Südafrikanische Medien einschließlich des staatlichen Fernsehsenders SABC berichteten mit Verweis auf anonyme Quellen, es habe sich um einen Suizid gehandelt. Die Polizei habe Ermittlungen eingeleitet, sagte der Polizeisprecher.

Am Vortag hatte die südafrikanische Finanzaufsichtsbehörde FSCA eine Strafe in Höhe von 475 Millionen Rand (umgerechnet etwa 23 Millionen Euro) gegen Jooste verhängt. Jooste habe falsche und irreführende Aussagen im Zusammenhang mit dem Steinhoff-Bilanzskandal gemacht, so die FSCA. Jooste hätte die Zahlung innerhalb eines Monats begleichen müssen.

Quelle: https://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/...026451.html?share=twitter  

Die meisten hier im Forum sind wohl NACH! dem Bilanzskandal eingestiegen.

Deswegen sollte man die Nachricht vom Tode Joosten neutral aufnehmen.

Wer auch immer mit Steinhoff NACH dem Bilanzskandal Verluste gemacht hat (einschließlich mir!), der kann einen Herren Jooste nicht verantwortlich machen.

Das nur mal so am Rande, FALL! jemand auf die Idee kommen sollte, die Post-Bilanzskandal-Investment-Verluste jemanden zuzuschieben.


 

Steinhoff-Untersuchung muss veröffentlicht werden. "Das öffentliche Interesse an der Offenlegung des Untersuchungsberichts wiege in jedem Fall schwerer als ein möglicher Schaden für Steinhoff. Der Bericht würde Beweise für erhebliche Gesetzesverstöße enthalten. Das öffentliche Interesse an der Aufdeckung des vollen Ausmaßes des Steinhoff-Skandals sei angesichts seiner Auswirkungen auf die Finanzmärkte und der erheblichen Verluste, die Investoren, darunter auch Pensionsfonds, erlitten hätten, von höchster Bedeutung."

Legal privilege in investigations: the Steinhoff investigation report
By André Vos & Sabeeha Kathrada on December 7, 2024

This blog was co-authored by Neshalia Nayagar and Eric Geldenhuys, Candidate Attorneys.

Legal professional privilege attaches to communications between a client and their attorney.  Where the privilege applies, documents are shielded from disclosure to other parties or in the public domain.

In Ibex v Tiso Blackstar & Others the Supreme Court of Appeal, in its eagerly anticipated judgment, reaffirmed the well-established test for determining whether or not a document is privileged from disclosure.

The matter concerns an investigation report produced in relation to the Steinhoff corporate scandal.  When its external auditors refused to sign off on its financial statements, Steinhoff engaged another firm of auditors to investigate alleged accounting irregularities.  Media houses and journalists sought access to the investigation report.

The proper test for determining whether a document is privileged from disclosure is as follows.  A document created with the dominant purpose of its author, or of the person or authority under whose direction it is created, of using it to obtain legal advice or in the conduct of existing or contemplated litigation is privileged and shielded from inspection and production.  

The investigating auditors were appointed by Steinhoff’s attorneys.  On the facts, the court found that the work by the investigating auditors was not to communicate with Steinhoff’s attorneys to obtain legal advice, nor in contemplation of some litigation, nor for the purpose of given advice with reference to that litigation.  Therefore, the investigation report was not subject to legal advice or litigation privilege and the court ordered that the report be released to those who sought access to the report.

The court mentioned that, in any event, the public interest in disclosing the investigation report outweighed any potential harm to Steinhoff.  The report would reveal evidence of substantial contraventions of the law. The public interest in exposing the full extent of the Steinhoff scandal was paramount, given its impact on financial markets and the substantial losses suffered by investors, including pension funds.

Ibex RSA Holdco Limited and Another v Tiso Blackstar Group (Pty) Ltd and Others (case no 862/2022) [2024] ZASCA 166 (4 December 2024)

Quelle: https://www.openlegalblogarchive.org/2024/12/07/...estigation-report/  

Hello. I would like to know what is happening with my CVR. I mention that I would like to sell them or maybe receive a dividend. Thank you.