Staff Reporter
A FORMER Nedbank Namibia employee testified in the N$3.1 billion fraud and tax evasion case today, which involves seven Chinese nationals and one Namibian, who are accused of under-declaring the income of their businesses in Namibia for taxation purposes, thereby defrauding the Ministry of Finance’s Customs and Excise Division.
Sisa Namandje, who represents five of the accused, including Tao Huizhong, Yuiqua ‘Jack’ Haung, Cao Shuhua, and Ying Zhang, cross-examined a witness summoned by the state in the matter, namely Patricia Visagie. Visagie worked for Nedbank during the alleged commission of offences related to fraud but is currently unemployed after resigning.
The state alleges that the accused defrauded the Ministry of Finance’s Customs and Excise Department and Nedbank Namibia by declaring incorrect values for goods imported into Namibia and inflating the costs of freight and other charges. This allegedly allowed the accused to send inflated amounts of money out of Namibia, intended as payment for imported goods, thus committing tax fraud. Approximately N$3.1 billion was paid to suppliers in China for imported goods into Namibia, but this was done at inflated prices.
These remittances, made via Nedbank, were allegedly processed through the accounts of accused 10 and 11, two corporate entities: Golden Phoenix Enterprises and Extreme Customs Clearing Services Pty Ltd. A Namibian national is said to be the Managing Director of these entities.
Namibian businessman Laurensius Julius (49), also an accused, was the sole member or shareholder of Extreme Customs Clearing Services and Organise Freight Services, which handled export-import affairs for over 100 entities between 2013 and 2016.
“This N$3 billion—it’s lucky that it’s not called a ‘rot’—did you give any evidence to the investigating officer to suggest in any way that you knew of criminal activity?” Namandje asked Visagie, the former Nedbank employee who handled the remittance applications. She responded “no” to this.
“Accused number two (Julius) is the owner of the accounts. You verified the signature of accused two, who is the owner of the accounts which sought remittances. You verified his signature to prevent fraud. If someone fakes a signature that looks like accused two’s signature, and you act upon that, you would be a victim of fraud. When you verify, you are trying not to act upon a fraudulent misrepresentation to the prejudice of Nedbank and yourself. A misrepresentation must be made before you react. In your evidence, did you accuse my clients of fraud or theft, and do you have any criminal evidence to accuse them of such?” Namandje asked the former Nedbank employee.
She responded “no” to this as well.
Visagie stated that she was not aware of any misrepresentation made to Nedbank. One of the lawyers in the matter added that Nedbank was also aware of a system where exporters would bring in products via licensed exporters, as they did not have licences themselves. This would inflate charges, as the middleman exporter with a licence to import goods would require payment.
Visagie added that the SAD-500 form, in which the state alleges that the imported goods were undervalued, leading to the tax evasion, did not play a central role in allowing the bank to send remittances to China. She explained that she merely verified the signature of the client, checked whether the SAD-500 form was attached, and ensured there were sufficient funds in the client’s account.
