(English text appears below the Afrikaans content)
Ons kondig aan dat die segment oor Sharemax-ontwikkelings wat vanaand op Dstv se Kyknet/In Gesprek Met-program uitgesaai sou word, nie sal plaasvind nie
Dit sal op ‘n latere tyd uitgesaai word en ons sal inlig sodra besonderhede van die nuwe gleuf byderhand is
Die rede vir die uitstel is dat die program se produksie bestuur ‘n oproep ontvang het van ‘n persoon genaamd André Brand wat voorheen ‘n direkteur van Sharemax was. Hy het versoek dat Deon Pienaar toegelaat word om deel te neem in die gesprek en gevolglik sal die formaat verander van lewendige gesprek met Herman Lombaard na voorafopgeneemde insette van hom en Deon (en, wonder ons, ander?)
Ons is hoogs nuuskierig oor die ingryp van ‘n voormalige direkteur van Sharemax. Om watter rede? Sharemax was immers uit die prentjie sedert 2010
Die onlangse aankondiging deur die NVG om nie enige party wat as ‘n respondent genoem word, te vervolg op aanklagte wat so ver terug as 2010 gelê is nie (sien ons plasing van 20 Julie) het blykbaar die kat in die duiwehok gegooi. Dit het ‘n vraag in die lug laat hang, naamlik: by wyse van afleiding het die NVG effektief verklaar dat daar geen onwettigheid in die Sharemax-opset was nie en dit wys die vinger na die Reserwebank. Ryk van Niekerk het in sy 26 Julie Moneyweb-artikel oor die besluit geskryf:
The NPAs decision may put the spotlight back on the controversial ruling by the South African Reserve Bank (Sarb) that Sharemaxs funding model contravened the Banks Act. The ruling triggered the implosion. [of Sharemax and other companies in the property syndication industry]
In ‘n onlangse artikel oor die onderwerp (sien www.moonstone.co.za/npas-decision-to-drop-sharemax-prosecution-will- impact-investors-and-advisers/) het Magnus Heystek voorgestel dat die besluit en aankondiging maak die weg oop vir optrede via “private vervolging”
Gee Brand se ingryping ‘n leidraad oor wat waarskynlik uit die NVG-besluit sal kom? Wat sal Deon Pienaar se insette wees? Vir meer as ‘n dekade was hy ‘n eensame kruisvaarder teen die beweerde onwettige besluit deur die Reserwebank en het hy hom beywer vir die omkeer van hul besluit en die herstel van die Sharemax-bates na die effektiewe eienaarskap van die oorspronklike Sharemax-beleggers
Terwyl Deon Pienaar gefokus het op die Reserwebank-besluit en die uitvloeie daarvan, het NDCAG, deur die wye wisselwerking met relevante owerhede en ander liggame, van Herman Lombaard, ‘n baie breër standpunt ingeneem om ook ander aspekte aan te spreek (byvoorbeeld; die korporatiewe vaslegging van Nova, die beweerde onwettige verkoop van die Sharemax-portefeulje-eiendomme, die versuim om Skuldbriefhouers terug te betaal, die totale mislukking van die sakeredding, onder andere) met die doel om die skuldiges te identifiseer, vervolging, en vir die uiteindelike restitusie van die regte en bates van die oorspronklike beleggers asook vergoeding vir verlore inkomste oor die jare sedert die geïmposeerde sluiting van Sharemax
We advise that the segment on Sharemax developments that was due to air tonight on Dstvs Kyknet/In Gesprek Met program will not take place
It will be aired on a later date and we will inform once details of the new slot is to hand
The reason for the postponement is that the producers of the program received a call from a person named Andre Brand who was formerly a director of Sharemax. He requested the producers to allow Deon Pienaar to participate and as a result, the format will change from live discussion with Herman Lombaard to pre-recorded inputs from him and Deon (and, we wonder, others?)
We are highly curious about a former director of Sharemax intervening in this way. For what reason? After all, Sharemax has been out of the picture sine 2010
The recent announcement by the NPA not to prosecute any party named as a respondent in charges laid as far back as 2010 (see our post of 20 July) seems to have put the cat amongst the pigeons. This has left a question hanging in the air, viz: by inference, the NPA have effectively stated that there was no illegality in the Sharemax set up and this points the finger at the Reserve Bank. Ryk van Niekerk wrote in his 26 July Moneyweb article on the decision:
The NPAs decision may put the spotlight back on the controversial ruling by the South African Reserve Bank (Sarb) that Sharemaxs funding model contravened the Banks Act. The ruling triggered the implosion. [of Sharemax and other companies in the property syndication industry]
In a recent article on the topic (see www.moonstone.co.za/npas-decision-to-drop-sharemax-prosecution-will- impact-investors-and-advisers/) Magnus Heystek suggested that the decision and announcement opens the way for action via private prosecution
Does Brands intervention give a clue as to whats likely to come out of the NPA decision? What will Deon Pienaars inputs be? For more than a decade he has been a lone crusader against the alleged illegal decision by the Reserve Bank and has campaigned for the overturning of their decision and the restoration of the Sharemax assets to the effective ownership of the original Sharemax investors
Whilst Deon Pienaar has focussed on the Reserve Bank decision and its outflows, NDCAG has, through the wide ranging interactions of Herman Lombaard, with relevant authorities and other bodies, taken a much broader stance in addressing other aspects also (for example; the corporate capture of Nova, the alleged illegal sale of the Sharemax portfolio properties, the failure to repay Debenture Holders across the board, the failure of the business rescue etc), identifying culprits and pursuing a path that will lead to the prosecution of such culprits for the ultimate restitution of the rights and assets of the original investors as well as compensation for lost income
