• Tidak ada hasil yang ditemukan

Pre-hearing summary-20041.pdf - ConCourt Collections

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2024

Membagikan "Pre-hearing summary-20041.pdf - ConCourt Collections"

Copied!
2
0
0

Teks penuh

(1)

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA National Director of Public Prosecutions v Meir Elran

CCT 56/12 Date of hearing: 15 November 2012

________________________________________________________________________

MEDIA SUMMARY

________________________________________________________________________

The following explanatory note is provided to assist the media in reporting this case and is not binding on the Constitutional Court or any member of the Court.

On 15 November 2012 at 10h00, the Constitutional Court will hear an application about the circumstances in which a court may authorise legal expenses out of property seized by the State and held under a preservation order.

In March 2006 the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) obtained a court order to seize property of Mr Meir Elran, including his bank accounts, on the ground that the items to be preserved were proceeds of transnational crime in terms of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act (POCA). In order to ensure access to legal representation, POCA authorises payment of reasonable legal fees connected with criminal proceedings out of the seized property, if the High Court is satisfied that the person cannot meet the

(2)

legal expenses, has disclosed all interests in the seized property and provided a full disclosure of all assets and liabilities.

In July 2006 the NDPP instituted forfeiture proceedings against Mr Elran’s preserved property. He opposed the application and requested that his legal fees be paid from this property, which he said was his entire estate.

Exercising a discretion in terms of POCA, a single judge a quo ordered the NDPP to pay the legal fees from the seized funds. The NDPP’s appeal against this holding to the Full Court consisting of three judges was unsuccessful and the Supreme Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal.

In this Court the NDPP argues that the High Court erred. She contends that Mr Elran failed to satisfy the requirements of the relevant POCA provision. In opposing this application, Mr Elran argues that the law was correctly interpreted and applied.

Referensi

Dokumen terkait