Unpacking the laundry machine: Why are debt instruments easy laundry devices?

by | Oct 12, 2019 | SACJ, SACJ V31 I1 2018

Unpacking the laundry machine: Why are debt instruments easy laundry devices?

Authors Paul Nkoane

ISSN: 1996-2118
Affiliations: Unisa
Source: South African Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 31 Issue 1, p. 84 – 112

Abstract

Money laundering is a crime that comes in all shapes and sizes. It is by its very nature a crime crafted for specifc needs and goals. The magnitude of laundering would hinge on the amount of money that needs laundering. Where criminals generate huge sums of illicit money, the bigger the ‘laundry machine’ that would be required, and where moderate amounts are generated, the average ‘laundry machine’ would be required, so to speak. Thus moderate amounts would be laundered with techniques that would suffce to realise the object. Where a criminal enterprise generates modest amounts it is unlikely that offshore companies would be set up for laundering. Techniques that are relatively obscure, but equally effective may be adopted. In this respect, the article seeks to explore the use of debt as a possible vehicle for money laundering.

The unfit accused in the South African criminal justice system: From automatic detention to unconditional release

by | Oct 12, 2019 | SACJ, SACJ V31 I1 2018

The unfit accused in the South African criminal justice system: From automatic detention to unconditional release

Authors Letitia Pienaar

ISSN: 1996-2118
Affiliations: Senior lecturer, Department of Criminal and Procedural Law, Unisa; Attorney of the High Court of South Africa
Source: South African Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 31 Issue 1, p. 58 – 83

Abstract

Section 77 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 sets out the orders that a court can make after fnding an accused unft to stand trial on account of his mental illness or intellectual disability. All the orders result in detention of the unft accused in prison or a psychiatric institution (depending on the nature of the charges against the accused) in terms of the Mental Health Care Act 17 of 2002. The court could not consider the treatability of the accused’s condition or any individual circumstances of the accused before ordering such detention. Section 77 was recently amended by the Criminal Procedure Amendment Act 4 of 2017. The Amendment Act resulted from the Constitutional court’s judgment in De Vos NO v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development 2015 (2) SACR 217 (CC) where the court found, inter alia, that such limited orders deprive the court of its discretion to craft an order that is suitable for the particular unft accused. The court ruled on the constitutionality of detaining an unft accused in prison or a psychiatric institution and found some provisions of s 77 that facilitates such detention, unconstitutional. The Amendment Act brings s 77 in line with the Constitution. This contribution explores the orders available to the court before and after the amendment of s 77 and conveys the crux of the court’s judgment in the De Vos matter pertaining to the unconstitutionality of certain provisions of s 77. It concludes that the amendment bolsters, in particular, the unft accused’s right to freedom and security of the person as the court may now order the conditional or unconditional release of the unft accused where appropriate.