KZN businessman and former top cops’ pre-trial in R47m Soccer World Cup ‘fraud and corruption’ case set down

Thoshan Panday. Picture: Sibonelo Ngcobo

Thoshan Panday. Picture: Sibonelo Ngcobo

Published Apr 16, 2024

Share

Nine people, including KwaZulu-Natal businessman Thoshan Panday, and former KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner, General Mmamonnye Ngobeni, who are accused of being involved in a R47 million Soccer World Cup fraud and corruption case, appeared in the Durban High Court on Monday (April 15).

Panday, together with Ngobeni, as well as Colonel Navin Madhoe, and Ashwin Narainpershad, a former police captain, face 275 counts of racketeering offences, including fraud, corruption, money laundering and forgery allegedly committed between March 2009 and April 2010.

The other accused are Panday’s mother, Arevenda Panday, his wife Privisha Panday, his sister Kajal Ishwarkumar, and his brother-in-law, Seveesh Maharaj Ishwarkumar, as well as Panday’s personal assistant, Tasleem Rahiman.

Henry Mamothame, the National Prosecuting Authority’s investigating directorate spokesperson, said charges related to the accused allegedly ignored the prescripts of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), when procuring accommodation for members of the South African Police Service (SAPS) during the Soccer World Cup in 2010.

“The policemen who are accused in this matter face accusations of colluding with Panday to receive contracts from the KZN police for an amount of over R47.3 million in fraudulent and irregular tender procedures.

“The state alleges Panday’s family of being party to a common purpose with Thoshan and others to defraud SAPS, through their association with entities which were used to score lucrative contracts from SAPS,” he said.

Mamothame said it was alleged that five entities related to and/or controlled by Panday were paid the total of R47 346 597.52 by SAPS.

He said these included Goldcoast (R39 336 283), Valotone (R3 515 704), Bravosat (R2 079 469), Kaseev Traders (R1 552 019) and Unite Mzansi (R863 122).

“Judgment on an application for disclosure of certain information is still reserved for a date that will be provided by the court. The state has strongly argued against this application,” said Mamothame.

The matter was set down for a pre-trial conference in July.

POST