High Court sets aside fraud conviction in R709,000 email scam case
The Pietermaritzburg High Court has cleared a man jailed for 15 years over a R709,000 email scam, saying money landing in his account was not enough proof.
A man sentenced to 15 years in prison for a fraud of more than R709,000 has had his conviction set aside by the Pietermaritzburg High Court. According to IOL, the judges found the State had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that he took part in an email interception scam aimed at a farmer.
Bongani Archibold Jele had been found guilty by the Ixopo Regional Court in 2022 and received the minimum sentence for the offence. On appeal, Judges Thoba Poyo-Dlwati and George Mossop replaced the fraud conviction with a not guilty verdict.
How the scam unfolded
The court heard that farmer David Stone planned to start growing kiwi fruit in the Donnybrook area, between Ixopo and Bulwer. He asked Treated Timber Products (TTP) for timber poles to build a shade-net structure. After accepting the company’s quote, he was sent an invoice of R709,333.41 on 22 April 2021, and he paid the following day.
Two weeks later, TTP told him the money had never arrived. Stone then found that the account he had paid into did not match the supplier’s real banking details. The court was told that fraudsters had intercepted the emails between the two parties, changed the account details on the invoice and sent the payment to another account. They allegedly also doctored his proof of payment so it looked as if TTP had been paid.
Why the conviction fell
The State showed that the receiving account was registered in Jele’s name. First National Bank evidence indicated it was opened in March 2021 and that his identity had been checked by fingerprint. Bank records showed R709,327.32 was deposited on 24 April 2021.
Jele admitted opening the account. He said he had passed it on to two people after being persuaded to sell it for R500. He also said he changed the cellphone number linked to it and got a replacement card because he feared trouble, and then gave that card to one of the two.
Judge Mossop found that the regional court had not properly weighed this version. The High Court said the State had in effect treated the deposit into an account in Jele’s name as proof of guilt, which was not enough. The judges noted there was no evidence that he made the false representation, or that he had the knowledge or means to intercept the emails.
They also pointed out that investigators did not establish who controlled the cellphone number later linked to the account. The amount deposited differed slightly from the amount Stone said he paid, and the bank statement named TTP as the source of the payment instead of Stone. The State did not explain this.
The State accepted on appeal that the fraud conviction could not stand. It considered a theft conviction instead but concluded the evidence did not support one. The High Court found Jele’s version reasonably possibly true.
What this means for readers
The case shows how a payment can be diverted by tampering with an emailed invoice. Anyone paying a supplier would do well to confirm the banking details with the company by another route before sending a large amount, and to report any payment that does not reach its destination quickly.
This story is based on reporting by IOL.
