The head of the elite investigating unit the Hawks, which is investigating the multibillion-rand fraud at retailer Steinhoff, told parliament on Tuesday that that it has requested bank account information and witness statements from abroad.
Steinhoff International has lost about R200bn in market value since 2017 after accounting fraud was discovered at the company, making it SA’s worst financial scandal. But to date no one has been arrested or held accountable.
The Hawks on Tuesday were updating the Select Committee on Public Accounts (Scopa) in the Steinhoff Holdings International case. Hawks boss General Godfrey Lebaya faced questions from MPs who had asked why no one had yet been held accountable for SA’s largest corporate fraud.
He told parliament the Hawks have requested information about 33 foreign bank accounts in Germany, Austria, Poland, Switzerland, France, Australia and the UK after these were flagged in the audit process.
The requests come after the Hawks received a forensic investigation report from PwC in April.
Lebaya said the main investigation docket includes 248 statements with affidavits from witnesses, subpoenas that have been served to the banks and bank records.
The Hawks still need to acquire 23 witnesses statements, including 14 from Germany, France, Australia and the UK.
DA MP Alf Lees praised the Hawks on the work being done but said: “The main proponents of the biggest corporate fraud in the history of SA remain uncharged. When will they, actually, get charged? When will Markus Jooste face the courts and have to account and if found guilty, hopefully, go to jail for a very long time?”
Lebaya did not provide a time frame for any arrests or action.
Jooste was the CEO of the Frankfurt Stock Exchange- and JSE-listed firm until December 2017 when he resigned after revelations of fraud.
In May, the SA Institute of Chartered Accountants (Saica) announced that it had charged Jooste with four counts of misconduct relating to his role at the global furniture retailer.
Saica said it had charged Jooste with conduct that “is discreditable, dishonourable, dishonest, irregular or unworthy, or which is derogatory to the institute”, according to its professional conduct standards.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.