S v Sadler

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Court: Supreme Court of Appeal
• Judge: Marais JA, Scott JA, Mthiyane AJA
• Judgment Date: 28 March 2000
• Citation: 2000 (1) SACR 331 (SCA)
• Hearing Date: 14 March 2000
• Counsel: R P Stuart SC for the appellant (the Attorney - General). J E Hewitt SC (with him F W Behuidenhout) for the respondent.

Marais JA:

[1] This is an appeal with the leave of this Court by the Attorney - General of KwaZulu - Natal, against the sentences imposed by Squires J consequent upon the conviction of respondent upon three counts (counts 1, 3 and 4) of contravening the Corruption Act 6 of 1958, seven counts (counts 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13) of E contravening the Corruption Act 94 of 1992, one count (16) of forgery and uttering and 11 counts (counts 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28 and 29) of fraud.

[2] The sentences imposed were these: in respect of counts 1, 3 and 4 (corruption), two years' imprisonment, the whole of which was suspended for five years on condition that respondent performed 1 000 hours of F community service; in respect of counts 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 (corruption), a fine of R500 000 or five years' imprisonment; in respect of count 16 (forgery and uttering), and counts 23, 24 and 27 to 29 (fraud), five year's imprisonment, the whole of which was conditionally suspended for five years. Respondent was acquitted upon counts 2, 5, 6, 8, 14, 15, 26, 30 and 31. The fine has been paid and the 1 000 hours of community service has G been rendered.

[3] It is unnecessary to review the circumstances in detail. It will suffice to sketch the picture in broad outline. Respondent occupied a senior managerial position in NBS Corporate Bank. His particular responsibility was to H evolve internal systems to facilitate the proper evaluation of risk by the bank when considering whether or not to advance money and to apply them when considering whether or not to authorise advances himself or when making recommendations concerning advances to higher authority within the bank.

[4] The system required him to assemble all information relevant to the risk and to take particular account of the I extent to which the bank might already be at risk by reason of previously made advances either to the applicant himself or to his businesses or to other persons for whose debt he might be liable as a surety. This collation of relevant information was known within the bank as 'grouping'. J

Marais JA

A [5] Respondent's own authority to make advances was limited initially to R1m but later to R2m. He was an experienced and able credit analyst with a reputation for conservatism which earned him the sobriquet 'Dr No'. His fall from grace was precipitated by his indulgence in the following forms of venality and dishonesty. In order to B ensure that certain persons received advances from the bank he either deliberately concealed the true extent of the bank's existing exposure to those persons and falsely represented it to be less than it was or placed false and misleading information before it. In one instance he forged the signature of a director of the bank upon a document in order to induce others in the bank to sanction an advance which would not otherwise have been C made. All this was done with a view to enriching himself by way of acceptance of a quid pro quo of one kind or another from the relevant applicant for an advance. In the main they took the form of money but there were also instances of valuable goods (a Rolex watch and BMW and Mercedes - Benz motor vehicles) and a large loan (R400 000) on favourable terms being given to him. D

[6] The approach to be adopted in an appeal such as this is reflected in the following passage in the judgment of Nicholas AJA in S v Shapiro 1994 (1) SACR 112 (A) at 119j-120c:

'It may well be that this Court would have imposed on the accused a heavier sentence than that imposed by the trial Judge. But E even if that be assumed to be the fact, that would not in itself justify interference with the sentence. The principle is clear: it...