INLSA
Panday
It was a bad day for fraud and corruption accused Thoshan Panday yesterday: he lost a high court case challenging the legality of a police seizure of his bank records, and his bail application was adjourned again.
Durban Regional Court magistrate Sharon Marks had indicated that she would rule on his application for bail yesterday morning. But at 2pm she said she was still not ready and rolled the matter over until today.
Panday has been in custody since just before the Easter weekend. He was arrested, along with Captain Aswin Narainpershad of the police supply-chain management, on allegations that they offered “one bar” (R1 million) to policeman Captain Kevin Stephen for help to create false documentation to defraud the police service.
While Narainpershad was out on bail, the State was opposing bail being granted to Panday, primarily on the grounds that he allegedly committed this offence while out on bail on another case of corruption for allegedly trying to bribe Hawks provincial head Major-General Johan Booysen.
Panday and his company, Goldcoast Trading, were also suspects in a separate R60m procurement fraud investigation.
It was during this investigation that the police obtained search warrants and seized his bank records. The records were being investigated by forensic auditors and could be used to build a criminal case against him relating to deals he did with the police service to provide officers with accommodation during the soccer World Cup.
Panday brought an application in the Durban High Court, challenging the validity of the five subpoenas served on various banks in May and June 2010, on several grounds. One was a challenge to the process used in obtaining the subpoenas. This was because the magistrates had not kept records of the documentation presented to them, based on which they had signed the subpoenas.
But Judge Mohini Murugasen said, while this might be “good practice”, there was no obligation in this regard.
Regarding Panday’s assertion that he was willing to co-operate, the state, represented by Nirmal Singh SC, assisted by Ryan Naidu, argued that, if this was so, he would have no objection to providing his bank records.
The judge agreed, saying his offers to co-operate were effectively undermined by the current application.
She said she could not find any “cogent or compelling grounds” on which she could find that the process used in obtaining the approval for the issue of the subpoenas and their execution was inconsistent with the constitution.
She dismissed the application, ordering Panday to pay the State’s costs.
