Times Of Swaziland: ZIM MAN NABBED WITH E2.3M OPENED LAUNDERING COMPANY - DPP ZIM MAN NABBED WITH E2.3M OPENED LAUNDERING COMPANY - DPP ================================================================================ Mbongiseni Ndzimandze on 06/12/2023 14:06:00 MBABANE – Masiyakurima Agrippa Bopela, the Zimbabwean national who was caught with E2.3 million at King Mswati III International Airport, reportedly opened a shell company in Eswatini, which he used as a conduit for laundering. Investigations by the police allegedly revealed that the bank account of the company, which was registered as Groupo Bopela Eswatini, had a turnover of E5 922 350.28. A shell corporation is a company with no significant assets or operations, often formed to obtain financing before beginning business. It may hold passive investments or be the registered owner of assets. The allegations against the businessman are contained in an application filed by the prosecution, wherein it is seeking an order to forfeit the money in terms of the Prevention of Organised Crimes Act (POCA), 2018. Turnover Head of Asset Forfeiture Unit under the Office of the Director Of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Principal Crown Counsel Elsie Matsebula, informed the court that upon opening, the company account became very busy from the period between June 2021 and May 2023. She highlighted that the account made a turnover of E5 922 350.28. Matsebula highlighted that a bulk of the funds were transferred into Bopela’s account, being a platinum cheque account and they were referred to as loans. She brought it to the attention of the court that the rest of the funds were utilised to pay individuals for unknown purposes. The principal Crown counsel submitted that there was a widespread private utilisation of the funds by the account holder, through account purchase that could not be associated with the business of the company. “The point of sale transactions included transactions referenced Movie Zone, school pocket money, airtime, Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC), medical check-up, Sibonelo Investment, laundry services, electricity, Debonairs and many others as shown in financial statements of the account,” submitted Matsebula. She stated that bulk funds would be received into the company account then quickly transferred either on the same day or the day after into Bopela’s personal account, referenced as loans. “There is clear evidence supporting that the company, which is a shell company, would not have been in possession of the said funds. This is due to the fact that the company never operated nor engaged in any business,” averred the head of Asset Forfeiture Unit. Matsebula contended that the company was merely registered for the purpose of opening bank accounts. She said as a result, the funds had to be quickly wired and layered by the act of transferring them into Bopela’s personal account. Funds Matsebula pointed out that once the funds were credited into Bopela’s account, they would be utilised for his private needs. She argued that Groupo Bopela Eswatini was a shell company and there was a clear trend of laundering. It was further her submission that the shell company stood as a source of the funds as they were utilised by the respondent (Bopela) through his personal account , who gave the impression that the funds were lawfully obtained as loans by him from the company. “Our jurisdiction was utilised to launder proceeds through opening the shell company, Groupo Bopela Eswatini, which received the funds,” contended the principal Crown counsel. She went on to bring it to the attention of the court that locally, Bopela opened two personal accounts with First National Bank (FNB) Eswatini. She submitted that there were a number of transactions in the accounts referenced ‘Soko’. Matsebula stated that an analysis of these transactions would be funds moving out of the business account into the personal account of the respondent again referenced as ‘Soko’. Such transactions, according to Matsebula gave the impression that a certain ‘Soko’ was paying into the accounts yet these were simply inter account transfers between the account of the shell company and that of the personal account and vice versa. She noted that the same reference (Soko) would be against credited in the accounts but there would be no corresponding debit in the other account. She averred that this showed that this was a payment from outside the two accounts but it was referenced Soko. “Again the same reference Soko will be utilised against debits in one account without a corresponding transaction in the other account, which shows that that particular account is transferring amounts to other unknown accounts,” she argued. Evidence “This is clear evidence that the reference ‘Soko’ was utilised as a disguise for funds either credited or debited by the holder of the accounts. The holder of both accounts is the respondent, he is hiding behind incorporation when it comes to him transacting against the account of the shell company,” contended the head of Asset Forfeiture Unit. She submitted that there were further transaction referenced ‘Ethiopian project’. This reference, as per Matsebula, was against funds received into the business account and credits ran between the period November 2021 and February 2022. She told the court that on September 21, 2021, a bulk amount of E500 000 was transferred from the personal platinum cheque account referenced ‘equipment Ethiopia’. It alleged that a month later, the credits referenced ‘Ethiopia project’ began flowing into the business account. Matsebula then drew the attention of the court to the fashion of the transactions referenced ‘Soko’ and ‘Ethiopian project’. She pointed out that all the transaction followed a staggered fashion and this was called structuring in money laundering. Matsebula explained that, structuring in money laundering was when criminals made transactions intentionally by splitting larger amounts into a series of smaller amounts to avoid scrutiny from law enforcement or accomplice obligations. Criminals “In other words, criminals strategically structure deposits just under the reporting threshold to prevent detection. Moreover, the monies will be deposited in the accounts and quickly transferred or utilised. This manifest the purpose of mere washing or laundering the funds as opposed to running a business,” argued the principal Crown Counsel. Matsebula alleged that the evidence showed clear abuse of corporate entity and as such, the prosecution was praying that the corporate veil should be lifted in this case. Meanwhile, the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe denied having authorised Bopela to leave the country with a large sum of money. The court was also told that police in Zimbabwe was also purportedly conducting some investigations into the matter. The application to forfeit the money is still pending in court. The respondent is represented by Lucky Howe.