Hulle het verwys na die voorlopige bevindinge van hul ondersoek na die sluiting van die PSPC-maatskappye in 2010 en het aan die WCHC voorgestel dat in hofsake wat die aktivis Deon Pienaar en ander relevant tot die sluiting en daaropvolgende gebeure betrek, die howe aandag moet gee aan die inhoud van die brief wanneer hulle getuienis aanhoor en uitsprake formuleer

Die primêre tekste in die brief is:

* “ ….this request for abeyance of the cases in question hinge on the fact that there exists reasonable grounds that the outcomes of the Section 41 Constitutional process (NDCAG: being the CIPC’s Inter-regulatory investigation into the shut-down if the PSPC companies) will have a material bearing on causing/triggering the review and setting aside of various judgements delivered by certain courts over the past decade or so” * “ …,the CIPC identified matters …….. which warrant the sounding of an alarm for the attention of the court” * “Some of the startling statements made by the NPA in regard to the conduct of the SARB have been shared with the SARB’s lead counsel for consideration” * “ … the averments and allegations made by Mr. Pienaar about the conduct of the SARB and/or its former officials, are not farfetched nor baseless” * “The core issues, if ignored, may lead to grave injustices” Besonderhede hiervan kan onder punt 9 van die voorlegging gesien word by <www.ndcag.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Kings-WCHC-Letter_SARB-Affidavit-003.pdf> www.ndcag.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Kings-WCHC-Letter_SARB-Affidavit-003.pdf). (NDCAG: Ernstige onregte bo en behalwe dié wat reeds al die PSPC-beleggers geraak het)

Dit wil voorkom asof CIPC se brief in Deon se saakverhoor op 18 November geïgnoreer is, aangesien die hofuitslag was dat Deon gesekwestreer is oor die wanbetaling van koste wat in vorige uitsprake teen hom toegeken is, en hy is ook weereens as ‘n lastige litigant (vexatious litigant) geëtiketteer (Google-soekresultate toon dat sulke persone “regstappe teen ander neem in sake sonder enige meriete”)

Na aanleiding van daardie gebeurtenis het die Waarnemende Adjunk-Regterpresident (Acting Deputy Judge President – ADJP) in die Departement van Justisie (DoJ) Deon, Cuma Zwane van CIPC en ander genader en hulle versoek om insette te lewer oor die oorspronklike CIPC-brief

Ons kommentaar hieroor is hieronder ingesluit, maar vir voorbereidende leeswerk, klik op hierdie skakels:

Oospronklike CIPC brief van 28 October: www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251028-1

Deon Pienaar se voorlegging aan die ADJP: <www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251128-1> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251128-1

Cuma Zwane se voorlegging aan die ADJP: <www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251128-2> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251128-2

* Die toetrede van die ADJP tot die arena:

Waarom?

Ons het nie hul versoek aan Deon en CIPC gesien nie, so ons weet nie die hoekom nie en kan slegs raai oor die rede

Maar hul belangstelling is goeie nuus! Iemand het duidelik die CIPC-brief raakgesien, die belangrikheid daarvan besef en wil meer weet

Volgens die bogenoemde skakels het beide Deon en Zwane gereageer en ons hoop dat die ADJP (en die breër DoJ) die ongeregtighede van die verlede sal besef en verstaan ​​en die noodsaaklikheid om te verseker dat dit omgekeer word en dat die slagofferdirekteure van die betrokke maatskappye behoorlik geregverdig word – met gevolglike voordelige uitkomste vir die beleggers

Ons wag om te hoor wat hulle doen uit die voorleggings wat voortbou op die oorspronklike CIPC-brief, en vertrou dat dit ‘n ommeswaai sal wees wat vereis dat die howe en die regsgemeenskap hul denkwyse oor die PSPC-bedryf (Ponzi-skemas) en Sharemax (wat onwettig as ‘n bank bedryf word) moet laat vaar

* Cuma Zwane se antwoord aan ADJP

Zwane maak ‘n saak vir die CIPC-ondersoek en lig effektief in oor wat die primêre inhoud van die tussentydse verslag – en dus heel moontlik die finale verslag – sal wees wat die benoeming van ‘n skuldige vir die 2010 PSPC-sluiting betref, deur middel van:

Para 13 : CIPC …. opines that the property syndication promotion companies’ business models were far removed from that of a bank. As such, by intercepting the companies in the manner that it did, SARB unduly exerted hegemony over an industry in which it had no jurisdiction

Para 14: “….. evidence suggests that the property syndications promotion companies collapsed due to the interference of the SARB” and “The CIPC merely states that the closest casual [causal?) link to the chain of events that led to financial distress and consequently business rescue and/or liquidations, points to the interference of the SARB.”

Para 17. It is also worth mentioning that the CIPC inter-regulator investigation’s preliminary report suggests that THE PREMISE AND LEGAL PROPOSITIONS RELIED UPON TO LITIGATE AGAINST VARIOUS PROPERTY SYNDICATION PROMOTION COMPANIES; ARE LITTERED WITH A CONFETTI OF LEGAL AND FACTUAL CONTRADICTIONS.” (NDCAG klem)

Ons klem op die vingerwysing na SARB in die bogenoemde beteken nie dat ander entiteite (en persone?) nie ook geïdentifiseer sal word as wesenlik relevant tot die gebeure van 2010 nie, maar dit lyk beslis uit Zwane se ADJP-voorlegging dat die skuld by SARB gelê gaan word

They referred to the preliminary findings of their investigation into the shut-down of the PSPC companies in 2010 and suggested to the WCHC that in court cases involving activist Deon Pienaar and others relevant to the shut-down and subsequent events, the Courts should pay heed to the letter’s content when hearing testimony and formulating judgements

The primary texts in the letter are:

* ” ..this request for abeyance of the cases in question hinge on the fact that there exists reasonable grounds that the outcomes of the Section 41 Constitutional process (NDCAG: being the CIPC’s Inter-regulatory investigation into the shut-down if the PSPC companies) will have a material bearing on causing/triggering the review and setting aside of various judgements delivered by certain courts over the past decade or so” * ” .,the CIPC identified matters …. which warrant the sounding of an alarm for the attention of the court” * “Some of the startling statements made by the NPA in regard to the conduct of the SARB have been shared with the SARB’s lead counsel for consideration” * ” . the averments and allegations made by Mr. Pienaar about the conduct of the SARB and/or its former officials, are not farfetched nor baseless” * “The core issues, if ignored, may lead to grave injustices” A list of these can be found under point 9 in the letter at <www.ndcag.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Kings-WCHC-Letter_SARB-A ffidavit-003.pdf> www.ndcag.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Kings-WCHC-Letter_SARB-Af fidavit-003.pdf). (NDCAG: Grave injustices over and above those that have already affected all of the PSPC investors)

It would seem that, in Deon’s case hearing on the 18 November, CIPC’s letter was ignored insofar as the court outcome was that Deon has been sequestrated over non-payment of costs awarded in previous judgements against him and he has also, once again, been labelled as a vexatious litigant (Google search results show that such persons “take legal action against others in cases without any merit”)

Following that event the Acting Deputy Judge President (ADJP) in the Department of Justice (DoJ) has approached Deon, Cuma Zwane of CIPC and others requesting them to give inputs on the original CIPC letter

Our comments on these are included below but for preparatory reading, click on these links:

Original CIPC letter of 28 October: www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251028-1

Deon Pienaar’s submission to the ADJP: <www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251128-1> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251128-1

Cuma Zwane’s submission to ADJP: <www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251128-2> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251128-2

* The entry of the ADJP into the arena:

Why?

We have not seen their request to Deon and CIPC so we don’t know the why and can only surmise on the wherefore

But, their interest is good news! Someone has clearly picked up on the CIPC letter, realised its importance and want to know more

As per the above links, both Deon and Zwane have responded and we hope that the ADJP (and the wider DoJ) will realise and understand the injustices of the past and the need to ensure that those are reversed and that the victim directors of the relevant companies are duly vindicated – with consequential beneficial outcomes for the investors

We wait to hear what they do out of the submissions building on the original CIPC letter, and trust that it will be a shake-up requiring the Courts and the legal fraternity to drop their mind-set about the PSPC industry (Ponzi schemes) and Sharemax (illegally operating as a bank)

* Cuma Zwane’s reply to ADJP

Zwane makes a case for the CIPC investigation and effectively, informs of what the primary content of the Interim Report – and thus, quite possibly, the Final Report, will be – as far as naming a culprit for the 2010 PSPC shut-down is concerned, by way of:

Para 13 : CIPC .. opines that the property syndication promotion companies’ business models were far removed from that of a bank. As such, by intercepting the companies in the manner that it did, SARB unduly exerted hegemony over an industry in which it had no jurisdiction

Para 14: “… evidence suggests that the property syndications promotion companies collapsed due to the interference of the SARB” and “The CIPC merely states that the closest casual [causal?) link to the chain of events that led to financial distress and consequently business rescue and/or liquidations, points to the interference of the SARB.”

Para 17. It is also worth mentioning that the CIPC inter-regulator investigation’s preliminary report suggests that THE PREMISE AND LEGAL PROPOSITIONS RELIED UPON TO LITIGATE AGAINST VARIOUS PROPERTY SYNDICATION PROMOTION COMPANIES; ARE LITTERED WITH A CONFETTI OF LEGAL AND FACTUAL CONTRADICTIONS.” (NDCAG emphasis)

Our emphasis on the finger pointing at SARB in the above, does not mean that other entities (and persons?) will not also be identified as materially relevant to the events of 2010 but it certainly seems from Zwane’s ADJP submission that the blame is going to be laid at SARB’s door