ic IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA In the matter of: CASE NO: 85105/2017 THE NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS APPLICANT and McKINSEY AND COMPANY AFRICA PTY (LTD) FIRST RESPONDENT ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED SECOND RESPONDENT In re: An application in terms of section 48 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act, Act 424 of 1898 concerning certain property listed in Annexure B INDEX TO FORFEITURE APPLICATION No DESCRIPTION PAGES 1 Notice of motion 1-4 2 Draft order 5-7 3 Founding affidavit of MOTLALEKHOTSO | 6-20 | KNORX MOLELLE 4 “Annexure MK M1 “21-33 | | Preservation order 5 ‘Annexure MK M2 4-36 Norton Rose Fulbright letter of 22 January | 2018 |‘Annexure MK M3 Government Gazette publication 37-38 ‘Annexure MK M4 Letter to Bowmans send on 29 March 2018 39-44 iiIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO: 85105/2017 In the matter of: THE NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS APPLICANT and McKINSEY AND COMPANY AFRICA PTY (LTD) FIRST RESPONDENT ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED ‘SECOND RESPONDENT In re: An application in terms of section 48 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act, Act 121 of 1998 conceming certain property listed in Annexure B NOTICE OF MOTION KINDLY TAKE NOTICE that the applicant intends applying to this honourable court on 2018 at 10h00, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, for an order in terms of the draft attached as annexure A, and/or further or alternative relief; TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the affidavit of MOTLALEKHOTSO KNORX MOLELLE as well as all affidavits and annexures filed in support of the preservation of property order granted by this honourable court on 14 December 2017 under the same case number will be used in support of the application; iTAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the epplicant has appointed the address of his attorneys of record referred to below, at which he will accept notice and service of all process in these proceedings. TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the respondent, having filed an appearance to oppose this application, is required to deliver his answering affidavit, if any, within 15 days of service of this application, ‘TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that if no answering affidavit is received, the application will be made on 2018 at 10h00, or as soon thereafter as counsel. DATED AT PRETORIA ON THIS DAY OF 2018, STATE ATTORNEY SALU Building Ground Floor 316 Thabo Sehume Street, PRETORIA Tel 012309 1677 Ref: Mr R Mathaga 8936/17/256 TO: THE REGISTRAR OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION PRETORIA ANDTO: — NORTHON ROSE FULBRIGHT SOUTH AFRICA INC FIRST RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEYS 15 Alice Lane Sandton |AND TO; Tel: 014 68 8873 Ref: Mck78/Mr J Kron/Mr AP Vos Email: Jeffrey.kron@nortonrosefulbright.com Andre.vos@nortonrosefulbright.com Busisiwe.nhlapo@nortonrosefulbright.com co MOTHLA JOOMA SABDIA Ground Floor, Duncan Manor cnr Jan Shoba and Brooks Street Brooklyn Pretoria Tet 012 363 3137 Ref: Mr Jooma/sm Email: ebrahim@mis-inc.co.za BOWMAN GILFILLAN INC SECOND RESPONDNET'S ATTORNEYS, Ground Floor Building 3, 11 Alice Lane Sandton Johannesburg Tel 011 669 9000 Ref: C Tucker/M Strydom Email: Claire tucker@bowmanslaw.com Melissa. strydom@bowmansiaw.com co VAN STADE VAN ENDE INC 1 Floor, East Block Menlyn Square Office Park Cnr Lois Avenue & Aramist Street us | | I |Meniyn Pretoria Tel, 012 940 8345 Ref: Leandri Trollip |ANNEXURE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORA CASE NO: 85105/2017 In the matter of THE NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS. APPLICANT and McKINSEY AND COMPANY AFRICA PTY (LTD) FIRST RESPONDENT ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED SECOND RESPONDENT An application in terms of Section 48 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998 concerning cash in the amount of R1 billion, DRAFT ORDER Having read the papers filed of record and after having heard counsel representing the parties, the following order is made: IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1 Anorder is granted in terms of Section 50 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act, Act 121 of 1998 (the POCA), declaring forfeit to the State certain property (the property), namely R1 billion, together with all interest accrued on the capital amount from the date of payment thereof by the second respondent to the first respondent, and currently held by the first respondent both in South Africa and overseas.In order to protect the interest of the victim, in casu, namely, the second respondent (Eskom), the interest of Eskom is hereby excluded from the operation of the forfeiture order. ‘The curator bonis, Medwin Madoda Sifiso Nxumalo of the firm TKN Incorporated located al 62/64 Florida Road, Morningside appointed as curator bonis by this Court in terms of cted to continue to act as such with the order granted on 14 December 2017, is authority to perform all the functions specified in the POCA subject to the provisions of the Administration of Estates Act 66 of 1965, and to the supervision of the Master of the High Court. The fees and expenditure of the curator bonis reasonabley incurred in the execution of his duties shall be paid from the proceeds of the forfeited property. In terms of section 56(2) of the POCA, the property shall vest in the curator bonis on behalf of the state upon the granting of the order. The curator bonis is authorised to: 6.1 assume control of the property and take it into his custody; 6.2 subject to any order of this court for the exclusion of any interest property under section 52(2) of the POCA, to deduct his fees and expenditure which were approved by the Master of the High Court; 6.3 _ perform any ancillary acts which, in the opinion of the curator bonis is necessary, including the facilitation of the transfer of the R1 billion, excluding his fees and expenditure, from McKinsey to Eskom's legal representatives trust account; The curator bonis shall, as soon as possible but not later than within a period of 90 days of this order coming into effect, file a report with the applicant and the Master of the High Court, indicating the manner in which he:7.1 completed the administration of the property mentioned above, and 7.2 complied with the terms of this order. 8 Any person whose interest in the property concemed is affected by the forfeiture order, may within 20 days after he or she has acquired knowledge of such order, set the matter down for variation or rescission by the court. 9 The Registrar of this honourable court or the State Attorney on the instruction of the Registrar must publish a notice of this order in the Government Gazette as soon as practical after the order is made. REGISTRAR OF THE HIGH COURTIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO: 85105/17 In the matter between: THE NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS — APPLICANT and McKINSEY AND COMPANY AFRICA (PTY) LTD. FIRST RESPONDENT ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED SECOND RESPONDENT In re: An application in terms of Section 48 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act, Act 121 of 1998, for the forfeiture of cash in the amount of R1 billion. FOUNDING AFFIDAVIT |, the undersigned, MOTLALEKHOTSO KNORX MOLELLE do hereby make oath and say that: 1 | am Acting Special Director of Public Prosecutions in the Republic of South Africa and the Head of Operations at the Asset Forfeiture Unit (AFU) of South Africa. | ws * ¢ AW xway have been duly appointed as such in terms of the National Prosecuting Authority Act, No. 32 of 1998 (‘the NPA Act’). 2 1am employed by the National Prosecuting Authority of South Africa, and | have been duly appointed as such in terms of section 15 of the NPA Act. 3 | ama functionary in terms of section 1 of the NPA Act which is under the control of the applicant as contemplated in Section 1(1) of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998 (the POCA.) 4 Ihave been duly authorised by the Applicant to bring this application on its behalf. | 5 In application proceedings peculiar to the POCA, the facts that are relied on in my founding affidavit are facts, which are informed by the investigations of parties that work in close cooperation with the applicant in the exercise of its mandate to apply for the civil forfeiture of property under Chapter 6 of the POCA. are not necessarily within my personal knowledge 6 — Accordingly, the facts her | because | am not the investigating officer of the case. Unless the contrary is stated or the context indicates otherwise, these facts are borne out by the investigations of the parties. These facts are, to the best of my knowledge and belief, both true and correct. ‘THE APPLICANT 7 The Applicant in this matter is the National Director of Public Prosecutions, appointed in terms of section 179(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 read together with section 10 of the NPA Act. The applicant has offices at 123 Westlake Avenue, Weavind Park, Silverton, Pretoria.THE RESPONDENTS 8 The First Respondent is McKinsey and Company Africa (Pty) Ltd, (registration number 2013/091251/07) (McKinsey), a private company duly incorporated and registered in terms of the company laws of South Africa with its principal place of business at 140 West Street, Sandton. The Second Respondent is Eskom Holdings SOC Limited, a state-owned company with limited liability duly incorporated in terms of the Eskom Conversion Act, Act 13 of 2001 and the company law of South Africa with its principle place of business at Megawatt Park, Maxwell Drive, Sunninghill, Sandton. ‘THE FORFEITURE APPLICATION 10 1 12 13 This is an application in terms of Section 48 of the POCA, declaring certain propetty forfeited to the state in terms of Section 50(1) of the POCA. The said property is currently the subject of a preservation order granted by this court on 14 December 2017, under court case 85105/17 (‘the Preservation Order”). The said preservation order relates to an amount of R 1 billion (“the property”) paid by Eskom Holdings SOC Limited (Eskom) to McKinsey and Company Africa Ply Limited, Part of the said amount, namely an amount of approximately R 105 000 000.00 is currently held in McKinsey’s Incorporated Standard bank account, with account number 421061812. For reasons set out hereunder, | submit that the property is the subject matter of current application for a forfeiture order.JURISDICTION 14 The preservation order, which is a pre-requisite for this forfeiture order was granted by this honourable court. | further point out that the property, is located within the area of jurisdiction of this honourable court. | accordingly submit that this court has jurisdiction to hear this application. BACKGROUND 15 16 7 18 On the 14 December 2017, the Applicant obtained a Preservation Order in terms of Section 38 (1) of the POCA, under court case number 85105/17, in respect of the following property: 15.4 R 1 billion paid by Eskom to McKinsey in respect of the Master Service Agreement 15.2 R595 milion paid to Trillian. In terms of the preservation order granted by this honourable court on 14 December 2018, Mr Medwin Madoda Sifiso Nxumalo (Nxumalo) was appointed as the curator bonis and the portion of the property at issue in these proceedings is, currently in his custody and control. In support, hereof | attach a copy of the preservation order marked as annexure MKM 4 In terms of section 56(1) of the POCA, this honourable court may appoint a curator bonis to perform the functions necessary to fulfil the provisions of a forfeiture order. Accordingly, a curator bonis will be required to carry out the functions necessary to fulfil the terms of any forfeiture order granted by this honourable court. In the circumstances, | respectfully request this honourable court to also extend ‘and confirm the appointment of the said Nxumalo, as curator bonis in this matter. 4 H/ 1 | |19 20 2 22 23 Pursuant to his appointment, the curator bonis engaged with the First Respondent with the view giving effect to the preservation order. Based on the said engagements the First Respondent gave an undertaking to secure the amount of R ‘billion, which amount the First Respondent had always undertaken to pay back should a court order be made. | am advised in this regard that as part of their proposed undertaking, the First Respondent secured the amount of approximately R 105 million, in the said Standard Bank account as part of the R 1 billion to be paid back. To date and notwithstanding the curator’s endeavours to locate and secure the amount of R 695 million paid by Eskom to Trillian, the curator bonis, to date, did not succeed in locating the said property. | wish to point out that the Applicant will not seek a forfeiture order in the amount of R 595 million paid by Eskom to Trillian in these proceedings and as such no relief ian in these proceedings. will be sought from On or about 29 March 2018, Eskom instituted review proceedings against the Applicant, Trillian and the First Respondent. The said proceedings were intended to inter alia; 23.1 declare the master service agreement contract invalid; 23.2 institute a claim for the recovery of the funds paid to the respective Respondent and Trillian.NOTICE TO INTERESTED PARTIES. 24 25 In terms of paragraph 4 of the preservation order, the Applicant was directed to give notice of the granting of the preservation order, as is relevant to the current application to: 24.1 McKinsey and Company Africa (Pty) Ltd, 88 Stella Street, Sandown Mews East, Sandown, Gauteng: The preservation order together with court papers were served. 25.1 On the First Respondent, on 29 January 2018, at 23 Melrose Boulevard (4 Floor), Melrose Arch, Johannesburg, by the Sheriff; Johannesburg North. The return of service in respect of the Respondent is attached hereto as annexure "MKM 2". NOTICE TO OPPOSE 26 27 On 7 February 2018, the First Respondent filed a Section 39(3) and 39(6) in terms of the POCA. Section 39(3) of the POCA allows for any person to enter an appearance giving notice of his/her intention to oppose the making of a forfeiture order or to apply for an order excluding his/her interest in the property concerned from the operation thereof. Section 39(6) of the POCA requires of a person who has entered an appearance referred to above to fle an affidavit stating 27.1 {ull particulars of the identity of the person entering the appearance; 27.2 the nature and extent of his or her interest in the property concerned; and We27.3 the basis for the defence upon which he or she intends to rely in opposing a forfeiture order or applying for the exclusion of his or her interest from the operation thereof. REQUIREMENTS FOR FORFEITURE ORDER IN TERMS OF SECTION 50 OF THE POCA 28 The High Court is empowered to grant a forfeiture order in terms of section 50(1) of the POCA if the court finds on a balance of probabilities that the property is an instrumentality of an offence referred to in Schedule 1 or the proceeds of unlawful activities as defined in the POCA, or both. 29 In terms of section 50(2) of the POCA, the court may when it makes a forfeiture order or at any time thereafter, make any ancillary orders that it considers | appropriate, including an order for and with respect to facilitating the transfer to the State of property forfeited to the State under such an order. PUBLICATION OF PRESERVATION ORDER AND COMPLIANCE WITH 90- DAY PERIOD 30 In terms of Section 40 of the POCA, a preservation order will expire 90 days after the date on which notice of the making of the order is published in the Government Gazette unless, inter alia, there is an application for a forfeiture order pending before this honourable court in respect of the property, which is subject to preservation. 31 Anotice of the granting of the preservation order was published in the Government Gazette in terms of Section 39(1)(b) of the POCA on 23 February 2018. | 32 A copy of the aforesaid publication is annexed hereto and marked annexure “MKM 3”. The preservation order will accordingly expire on 24 May 2018.: 15 33 in the event that the present application is instituted before the expiration of the 90- day period, which | intend to do, the preservation order will stil be in force and the requirements of Section 48(1) of the POCA would be satisfied. FACTUAL AND SETTLEMENT DISCUSSION 34 The NDPP and McKinsey had entered into settlement negotiations in respect of the forfeiture of the McKinsey property on an unopposed basis (McKinsey forfeiture), after the order was served in January 2018. 35 While these discussions were ongoing, Eskom, the sole victim of the unlawful activities committed, brought review proceedings before this court in which it sought, on an interim basis, the staying of these preservation proceedings (and thus, consequently the forfeiture proceedings) pending the outcome of its review in Which it will seek, inter alia the repayment of the monies held by McKinsey and in respect of which the preservation order was obtained. 36 The court appointed curator bonis, during the execution of the preservation order, entered into negotiations with McKinsey and in terms of such negotiations, McKinsey has undertaken to ring fence the entire amount 37 The Applicant seeks the sole exclusion of the interest of Eskom to the McKinsey property and will move for the repayment of this property, minus the deduction of fees of the curator bonis, to Eskom. 38 Settlement negotiations are between McKinsey, Eskom and the Applicant are cengoing and have reached an advanced stage. The purpose of the settlement agreement is essentially that McKinsey has publicly offered to repay Eskom the amounts paid out under the Master Services Agreement, and in the interests of harmonising the forfeiture proceedings and Eskom review proceedings, and acting39 40 in the broader public interest so as to ensure the return to Eskom of the funds paid by it to McKinsey, as quickly as possible. Essentially Eskom and the Applicant in the forfeiture application seek the same relief and the Applicant is further not opposed to the Eskom final relief sought and further recognises Eskom's interest in this application. Unfortunately, these settlement discussions have reached an impasse and, in order to prevent the lapsing of the preservation order obtained by the Applicant, | decided that this application for forfeiture, in respect of the amount preserved at least, be pursued forthwith. ESKOM REVIEW PROCEEDINGS 41 42 43 ‘On 29 March 2018, Eskom instituted review proceedings. The relief sought by Eskom in the review application, Case number: 2877/18, is that the Court grants relief ordering all or part of the approximately R16 billion to be returned to Eskom, by McKinsey and Trillian, or such relief is agreed between any of the parties to the Eskom application. These review papers, which are of a voluminous nature, were served on both the Applicant and the First Respondent and | accordingly pray that the contents thereof be incorporated herein as to not unduly burden the court record. As a result, the Applicant has identified the interest of Eskom, as the victim and has excluded their interest from the operation of the forfeiture order. (On 29 March 2018, the Applicant directed a letter to the Second Respondent indicating amongst others that the Applicant recognises the interest of the Second Respondent and the ultimate purpose of the forfeiture order will be to ensure that the Second Respondent is compensated for the loss suffered. | attach hereto a 9 WVcopy of a letter dated 29 March 2018 forwarded by myself to the Attorney's of record of the Second Respondent on 29 March 2018. The attention of this court is respectfully directed to paragraph 2.2 on page 2 of this letter which is quoted in full “The NDPP will proceed with a forfeiture application, which will be finalised in terms of a Settlement Agreement between the parties, which agreement will seek to achieve, amongst others, the following: 43.1 to recognise and protect the interests of the NDPP and Eskom respectively, with the ultimately purpose of ensuring that Eskom is compensated the financial loss suffered; 43.2 that the respective and envisaged civil recovery processes by the NDPP and Eskom are recognised and harmonised with the view of ensuring the most equitable result and in the most cost effective manner, and 43.3 that Eskom’s interests, ie the Rt, 6 billion) will be recognised and protected within the context of the envisaged forfeiture proceedings’. In support hereof | attach a copy of the letter dated 29 March 2018 marked MKM 4. THE PROPERTY IS THE PROCEEDS OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY 44 The affidavits filed in support of the Applicant's application for the preservation order set out the basis upon which the applicant prayed for and was granted the preservation order by this honourable court. The papers filed in casu follow on from the legal and factual basis laid down in the founding papers to the preservation application and as such, the preservation papers are accordingly incorporated herein, The legal and factual basis upon which the preservation order was granted is discussed again hereunder for easy reference.45 47 The court is referred to the stalement of Samson John Schalkwyk (Schalkwyk) which sets out the unlawful activities and was filed in the application for the preservation order. ‘Schalkwyk’s affidavit deals with both the facts as well as the subject matter of this, application. | refer this honourable court to paragraphs paragraph 16 to 44, on paginated pages 54 to 80, of Schalkwyk’s affidavit, which deals with the property as the proceeds of unlawful activities. As stated earlier, in light of McKinsey’s unequivocal admission in their Section 39(5) affidavit to the effect that it would not retain the property received from Eskom where there was non-compliance with procurement laws, it reasons that they cannot legitimately oppose the granting of a forfeiture order THE PROPERTY IS THE PROCEEDS OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES. 48 43 50 The provisions the POCA, in particular, section 48(1) provides that if the preservation order is in force, the applicant may apply to this honourable court for an order forfeiting to the state any property that is subject to the preservation order. | submit that the evidence reasonably and rationally demonstrates that the property is proceeds of unlawful activity. | further submit that is evident that the First Respondent, being the recipient of the substantial portion of the entire payment, has come to the realisation that it was not lawfully entitled to the said payment, hence the attempt at settlement. | refer to paragraph 44 of Schalkwyk’s affidavit in the preservation application, and the statement of the First Respondent's senior partner, one David Robert Fine (Fino). As is evident from the statement Fine makes an acknowledgement, amongst others, that the purported contract that gave rise to the payment is invalid 1 s W »and further makes an undertaking that the First Respondent would not benefit from an invalid contract. Fine further stated that the First Respondent has agreed to repay the money to South Africa. This is, | submit, an acknowledgement that the funds constitute the proceeds of unlawful activities. Whether McKinsey was a party to such activities or not is irrelevant to this application. CONCLUSION 51 For the reasons set above, | submit that the factual and legal requirements for the granting of an order forfeiting the property to the State in terms of Section 50 of the POCA have been met, and humbly pray that this honourable court grant an order in terms of the draft order annexed to the notice of motion. Desionent | | | certify that on this 2S day of MAS 2018, the deponent signed | the affidavit in my presence and deciared that he knows and understands its contents, that he has no objection to taking the prescribed oath and that he considers the oath to be binding on his conscience.~ o WEE Cape Commissioner of Oaths Full Namos: HoCNAHL( {(LELAM Meet Designation: CAP TA (AY Area: RSA address: PiomaT Bilie StAch | CeessWetle 0A SUE zTOV O27IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFI (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) 14 Decembe, 2017 Coram: DMIE AT. LS i ‘CASE NO: In the ex parte application of: THE NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS APPLICANT In Re: Application in terms of Section 38 of the Preventi in OEE, Act 121 of 1998, concerning certain Property listed in “ Pe Xe DRAET-ORDER HAVING read the documents filed of record and having considered the matter: nnexurerP > IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: An order in terms of the draft order is hereby made in terms of Section 38 (1) of the POCA as follows; 1 THE PROPERTY that this order relates to property and proceeds of unlawful activities as defined in section 4 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998 (the POCA) and oxtends to property referred to in Annexure “B” attached hereto, hereinafter referred to as “the property”. i ~~ | | |THE PRESERVATION 24 2.2 23 24 APPOINTMENT OF CURATOR BONIS 34 3.2 33 3.4 thal in terms of section 38 (2) of POGA and subject to the provisions of this order, all persons with knowledge thereof are prohibited from disposing of, further dissipating, interfering with, diminishing the value of or dealing in any other manner with the property; any person in possession and or in control of the property is directed, forthwith to surrender the property to the curator bonis; any persons having knowledge of, or any information and documents pertaining to the property, are hereby directed to fully disclose and surrender such information or documents to the curator bonis. that notwithstanding the provisions of this order, any person who has financial obligations in respect of any of the property is ordered to full such obligations, including any obligations relating to all interest accruing forfeiture in respect of such obligations, pending the finalisalignsot th of the Applicant. In terms of section 42 of POCA, Medwin Madoda Sifiso Nxumalo of TKN Incorporated located at 64/62 Momingside, Durban, 4000 is appointed as curator bonis over the property (the curator bonis) The curator bonis shall have all such powers, duties and authority as provided for in the POCA and in this order. The curator bonis is authorised to assume control of the property and do any and all things necessary to preserve the property while the order isin force, Any person who holds the property is directed in terms of section 42 (1)(b) of the POCA to surrender the property forthwith into the custody fu3.5 3.6 37 of the curator bonis, failing which any member of the South African Police Services or other agency if the facts render it necessary or appropriate is hereby authorised, on the instruction of the curator bonis, to seize the relevant property and place it in the custody of the curator bonis. The curator bonis is hereby directed to file his report with the Registrar of this Honourable Court within 40 days of the granting of the preservation order, which report shall contain an inventory of the property taken into his custody in terms of this order, setting out the steps that he has taken to give effect to this order, and make any further recommendations as he may deem fit, regarding any further steps he might be required to take in order to give effect to the order. The curator bonis is further directed to file further supplementary reports containing additional and relevant information as and when such reports become necessary. The fees and expenditure of the curator bonis must, in terms of section 42(2) of the POCA be paid from the forfeited property. In the event of no forfeiture order being granted, then such fees and expenditure must be paid by the State. The curator bonis shall have such powers, duties and authority as provided for or implied in POCA and such further powers as are specified or implied in this Order including but not limited to, the following: 3.7.4 3.7.2 to take all reasonable and lawful steps to discover any fact relating to any of the property and to locate it with the view of achieving the object of this Order, read in the context of POCA and, in particular, section 39(1) thereof; to require any interested party to make full disclosure undér-and in terms of this order and to provide such further and specific3.7.3 3.7.3 3.7.4 3.7.5 3.7.6 information as the curator bonis considers relevant to any fact that has been disclosed, which authority shall be exercised with the view of achieving the objects of this Order, road in the context of POCA and in particular, Sections 42 and 43 of POCA; to have the power and authority, with regard to the shareholding held by any of the interested parties in any Close Corporation or Company, to act as member or Director respectively, in the place and stead of the relevant interested party; to deal with any funds in any banking accounts forming part of the property and is accordingly authorised to hold the necessary signing powers on such accounts and to give directions to banking institutions, and other persons in control of any of those funds regarding the utilisation of such funds; {o inspect, copy and analyse all documents held by or on behalf of the interested parties or any data on any computer software or hardware used by the interested parties with the viow of tracing and locating, as may be necessary, the property; to make enquiries from the interested parties as well as their respective accountants or auditors and pursuant to such enquiries inspect, copy and analyse all relevant documentation relating to the affairs of the interested parties and any other entities in which the interested parties have an interest, with a view of tracing the property; the curator bonis is authorised to take into his possession and control, to take care of the property and to administer it, whether the property is situated inside grat is Africa;3.6.7 to make enquiries from the interested parties as well as their respective accountants or auditor and pursuant to such enquiries, inspect, copy and analyse all relevant documentation relating to the affairs of the interested parties and any other entities in which the interested parties have an interest, with a view of tracing the property, and 3.6.8 to make contact with all financial institutions, here and abroad, known to or suspected by the curator bonis to be holding monies, interests or assets subject to this order, and inform such institutions of the existence of the terms of this order, and to make arrangements for the rocovery of the property, 4 Publication and Service of the Preservation Order 44 4.2 The Applicant shall in terms of Section 39 of POCA, as soon as practicable after the making of the Preservation Order, cause a notice of this order including Annexure “GC” hereto, to be published in the Government Gazette. The Applicant shall cause notice of this Preservation Order together with the copies of the papers used in support of this Application, to be served on: 4.2.1 McKinsey and Company Africa (Pty) Ltd, 88 Stella Street, Sandown Mews East, Sandown, Gauteng; 42.2 Thabiso Legoete, 88 Stella Street, Sandown Mews East, Sandown, Gauteng; 4.2.3 Veronica Magwentshu, 88 Stella Street, Sandown Mows East, Sandown, Gauteng; 424 Prakash Parbhoo, 88 Stella,-Street, Sandown Mews East, Sandown, Gauteng; |42.5 Jean Pierre Georges Desvaux, 88 Stella Street, Sandown Mews East, Sandown, Gauteng; 426 Trillian Capital Partners (Pty) Ltd, 4% Floor, 23 Melrose Boulevard, Melrose Arch, Gauteng; 4.2.7 Eric Wood, 4° Floor, 23 Melrose Boulevard, Melrose Arch, Gauteng: 4.2.8 Trillian Financial Advisory (Pty) Lid, 4° Floor, 23 Melrose Boulevard, Melrose Arch, Gauteng; 4.2.9 Tebogo Leballo, 4" Floor, 23 Melrose Boulevard, Melrose Arch, Gauteng; 4.2.10 Trillian Management Consulting (Pty) Ltd, 4% Floor, 23 Melrose Boulevard, Melrose Arch, Gauteng; 4.2.11. Johannes Faure, Unit 24, 2 Floor, 1 Melrose Boulevard, Melrose Arch, Gauteng; 4.2.12. Daniel Roy, Unit 24, 2% Floor, 1 Melrose Boulevard, Melrose Arch, Gauteng; 4.2.13 Trillian Properties (Pty) Ltd, 4" Floor, 23 Melrose Boulevard, Melrose Arch, Gauteng; 4.2.14 Trillian Securities (Pty) Ltd, 4" Floor, 23 Melrose Boulevard, Melrose Arch, Gauteng 4.2.45 Any other person who becomes known to the Applicant as having an interest in the property. ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO OPPOSE FORFEITURE ORDER Any person who has an interest in the property and who intends: iiag.the property to the 5.1. to oppose the application for an order fork State; and / 45.2. toapply for an order excluding his or her interest from the forfeiture order in respect of the property; 5.3. must enter an appearance giving notice of such an intention in terms of Section 39(3) of the POCA. 6 —_ Anyperson under paragraph § above, who intends opposing an order forfeiting the property to the State shall, in terms of Section 39(4) of the POCA, deliver a notice to the Applicant of such intention: 6.1 _ in the case of a person upon whom service is effected in terms of the POCA, within 14 days after such service; 62 inthe case of all other persons, within 14 days after the date upon which notice of this order is published in terms of paragraph 5 above; 6.3 An appearance in terms of paragraph 5 above must, in terms of Section 39(6) include full particulars of the address chosen for the delivery of documents conceming further proceedings in this matter, and must be accompanied by an affidavit setting out: 6.3.1. full particulars of the opposing party's identity; 6.3.2. the nature and extent of his or her interest in the property; and 6.3.3. the basis of the defence upon which he or she intends to rely on in opposing the forfeiture application or in seeking to have his interest excluded from the forfeiture order; 6.4 whether he or she admits or denies that the property concemed Is the proceeds of unlawful activities as contemplated in the POCA, and the basis for such defence. 7 APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION 7.4 Any person who is affected by the order may"OR,gopd.cause shown, apply for reconsideration. Such application shail be'made:7.1.1. in instances where the person is able to justify the application on grounds of urgency, upon 3 days notice to the Applicant (or such shorter period as the Court may determine on good cause shown); 7.1.2. in other instances, upon at least 7 days notice to the Applicant and all other persons identified in this order as being persons who may have an interest in the property; 7.4.3. notlater than 8 days after the person applying for reconsideration becomes aware of the existence of the order, or within such further period as the court may consider reasonable, bearing in mind the underlying principles of the POCA. 8 "Any person unsuccessfully opposing the Application shall pay the costs occasioned by such opposition. we -§-— Further anciior alternative rete. — \ THE REGISTRAR GF THE HIGH COURT NaANNEXURE B ES 728 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) CASE NO: In the ex parte application of: THE NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC APPLICANT PROSECUTIONS In re: An application in terms of section 38 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998 —_——— ANNEXURE B TO DRAFT ORDER —_— 1. The total amount of R1 595 228 913.29, paid by Eskom Holding Limited SOC Limited to McKinsey and Company Africa Pty Limited and any of its related entities and subsidiaries (McKinsey) and Trillian Capital Partners (Pty) Ltd and any of its subsidiaries and related entities (Trillian), which amounts were paid to the aforesaid entities as follows; 1.4. the amount of R1 000 000 000.00 and any such further amounts9 4.2. the total amount of R595 228 913.29 in Trillian Capital Partners and its subsidiaries including all amount in Trillian Management Consulting's Absa Bank account No. 4088410495 Bank account; 2. Interest on the aforesaid amounts at 15.5%, which shall be calculated from the date of payment by Eskom to the date the said funds are paid back by one or more of the respective entities and or recipients; 3. Any such further amounts and property as may be identified as constituting and or representing a portion of the amounts referred in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, as may be located and identified anywhere, locally and abroad.ANNEXURE C IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA) Case No: 5" _/0S 72017 In the ex parte application of: The National Director of Public Prosecutions Applicant In Re: Application in terms of Section 38 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act, Act 121 of 1998, conceming certain Property listed in "Annexure B’. IN THE APPLICATION FOR A PRESERVATION ORDER IN TERMS OF SECTION 38 OF ACT 121 OF 1998 (POCA ACT) NOTICE IN TERMS OF SECTION 39(1)(B) OF THE PREVENTION OF ORGANISED CRIME ACT, NO. 121 OF 1998 ("THE ACT”) a This notice is addressed to McKinsey and Company Africa (Pty) Ltd; Thabiso Legoete; Veronica Magwentshu; Prakash Parbhoo; Jean Pierre Georges Desvaux; Trillian Capital Partners (Pty) Ltd; Eric Wood; Trillian Financial Advisory (Pty) Ltd; Tebogo Leballo; Trillian Daniel Roy; Trillian Properties (Pty) Ltd; ‘Management Consulting (Pty) Ltd; Johannes Fau Trillian Securities (Pty) Ltd, and all other persons who have an interest in the property or property representing such property or the proceedsof ster ‘property (“the property’) Take notice th:The National Director of Public Prosecutions ("National Director") has obtained a preservation of property order (‘the Order’), a copy of which is attached to this notice, in terms of section 38(2) of the Act in respect of the property; if you have an interest in the property, you should understand that itis now at risk. You would be well advised to obtain legal advice on whether your interest can be protected and, if so, how to protect it; You are advised that the National Director will, within 90 days of publication of this notice, apply to the High Court under section 48 of the Act for an order declaring the property forfeit to the State. The Order will remain in force until the application for a forfeiture order is finalised, and until any forfeiture order that is made is satisfied; If you intend opposing the application for a forfeiture order, or you intend applying for ‘an order excluding your interest from a forfeiture order in respect of the property, you must enter an appearance in terms of the Order. The requirements for such an appearance are set out in the Order and are also dealt with in sections 39(3), (4) and (5) of the Act. An appearance must comply with these requirements; Your attention is specifically drawn to the 14-day time limit prescribed in section 39(4) for the entry of an appearance referred to in paragraph 4 above; If you enter an appearance in terms of the Order you will be entitled to be given 14 days notice of the application by the Applicant for a forfeiture order in respect of the property; If you fail to enter an appearance in terms.of the Order or to comply with the abave he ePaleaton for a forfeiture order and nela_such a case the Court may grant a default order forfeiting the property {to fhe Staie Ute section 53 of the Act;10 You may, on good cause shown (including the non-availability of any other suitable remedy to protect your legitimate rights or interests), on 72 hours notice to the Applicant, and within 8 days of becoming aware of the Order, apply for reconsideration of the Order; You are specifically advised that even if you intend applying for reconsideration of the n comply with paragraphs 4 and prosorvation order in this case, you must in ad above if you intend opposing the forfeiture application subsequently. Failure to do so can result in a forfeiture order being granted against the property by default and without further notice fo you. Whenever this order states that you must deliver or serve any notice, affidavit or other process document on the Applicant, you must deliver or serve them on the Applicant at the following address: THE STATE ATTORNEY SALU Building Ground Floor 316 Thabo Sehume Street, Pretoria 0001 Tel: 012 309 1677 { ears Cell: 073 434 1293 i mati Email; RMathaga@justice.qov.za ! ci i Reference Number: 12016/256 oe Rei DX: 298 Pretoria Any correspondence or other enquiries must also be directed to this address or contact number, | | | |22 January 2018 By Email jpwillemse@npa.gov.za MEM 234 A NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT Norton Rose Fullight South Afica tne 1S Alice Lane ‘Sandion 2198 South Atcica Tol +27 11 685 8500 Fax #27 14 301 3200 Direct fax +27 11 901 3276 PO Box 784903 Sandton Mr J P Wilomse Docs stSonerrestarg Asset Forfeiture Unit netonrosaubrigh.com | Vietoria and Griffiths Nxenge Building erat | 123 Westlake Avenue pe | ‘Weavind Park eee | Silverton Pretoria Emai | jatey Aron@notonrastutight coma Your reference Our reference MCKTBINe J Krone A Vos Dear Sir ‘The National Director of Public Prosecutions: Applicant. High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Protoria. Case number: 85105/17 1 We refer to our meeting with you on the 18 of January 2018. 2 We hereby confirm that we are authorised to accept service of the order of court, notice of motion, founding affidavit and accompanying papers under the above case number on behalf of: 2.4 MeKinsey and Company Afica Pty Limited: 2.2 Veronica Magwentshu; 2.3 Prakash Parbhoo; 24 Joan Pleo Georges Dosvaux, 2.5 — Thabiso Legoote, Provided that the Shorff effects such service on Jeffrey Maurice Kron ~ Director, Norton Rose Fulbright South Attica Ine or André Pieter Vos ~ Director, Norton Rose Fulbright South Attica inc at | Norion Rose Fulbright South Attica Inc | 45 Alice lane | Sandton | Johannesburg. 3 Would you please ask the Sheriff to contact either of us in advance of the delivery so that we can | censure we are at office to accept delivery. | 4 My direct number is (011) 685 8873. Cell number 083 254 6876. André Vos' direct number is (011) 885 8865. His cell number is 083 604 0598, | 5 Please note: whilst we are authorised to accept service on behalf of Thabiso Legoete, he Is not an i ‘employee of McKinsey and is no longer on the McKinsey Board,22 January 2018 6 Please acknowledge receipt. Yours faithfully Norton Rose Fulbright South Arica Inc NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHTed : we IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DLVISION, PRETORIA) ~ Case No, 85105/17 In the matter between: THE NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS Applicant and MCKINSEY AND COMPANY AFRICA (PTY) LTT Ist Respondent and RETURN: SERVICE OF THE PRESERVATION APPLICATIONS AND ORDER DATED 14 DECEMBER 2017 WT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED: ‘That on this the 24 January 2018 at 1435 at 15 ALICE LANE, SANDTON,, JOHANNESBURG being the place of business of the Attomey of record of the Ist Respondent a copy of THE PRESERVATION APPLICATIONS AND OXDER DATED 14 DECEMBER 2017& Annexnres was served to Mr.J M Kron, attomey after the original process was displayed and the nature and exigency thercof was explained to him, Mr J M Kron being a respon:ible emy:toyee of the firmNORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT SOUTH AFRICA INC and apparently not under the age-of sixteen years, accepted service. Rule 4(1)(a)bis SHERIFE CHARGES/EXPENSES: (You may require that this accouat be taxed and vouched before payment) ‘Amount [Description ‘Tarif OTY Roan 7 1.32 flravelling 3.00 52 260.00 2 1600 ellular costs 230 4 9.20 eo 1 63.00 19.004 1000 43504 1 43.50 woo 2 20,00 Zero rated items 0.00 TH ’GISTRAR OF THE HIGH COURT, eaemtittasess VAT 59.25 Total 462.47 Account No $7489 STATE ATTORNEY - PRETORIA * DX* IKER - Deputy Sheritt of Section 6) the Sheriffs Act No 801986) 237018 18/01/00285,00__/ OPR6 TO: Dx - 298 - PRETORIA 187 330 0969 Email: accounts@sheriffsandton.coza lard Bank Ace No.: 012 801 747 DX-127 Randburz VAT No/BTW Ne. 4390216432 Your Reference: 8996/2017/256 ANTE UAepronce by Sie Onna ters of Goverment Peters Cyl Aart No. 10808 ted 2 February 19 WA V3. 2 w 24 No. 41454 GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 28 FEBRUARY 2018 2, Ordering that this order be served: 2.4 Onto First to Sith Respondents rspectvey; J 22 On the registered office ofthe close comporation as rliected in annexure “EAT” tothe foundjngfatidavit 2.3 On the members of the close corporation, and ae 2.4 By means of one publication each in the Government Gazette, The Beeld Newspapét, and The Star Newspaper, 3. Further andlor aitemative roll. BY THE COURT (Case No: 2721/2017 3 Sentinel, Witbank IN THE HIGH.GOURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Gaujot Dison derannesburg) Johannesbura 24 Jénvery 2018 Honourable Acta sue Copin Inthe mater betwoon: Sudoreoal Py) initod- Applicant and Sandowana tinras (Py) Lived - Respondent ter oni ofa lovant douse and ater hong the ropresniatve on behalf o the Applian IT 1S ORDERED: fo 1. THAT the Respondont shally would up and placed inthe hands ofthe Master ofthe High Court; 2 THAT the Applicant ipfo serve a copy ofthis order on: 21 The Maso of th High Court 22 SARS; 2.3 Any empléjeos of the Respondent and any Trade Unions representing such employees, if any; 2, THAT He costs ofthe application be costs inthe iquiaton erage men 4 ANNEXURE B&C Case No: 85105/17 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) PRETORIA, 14 December 2017, Before The Honourable Acting Justice Davis AV, In chambers Inthe ex parte application of: THE NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, Applicant In re: Application in terms of Section 38 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act, Act 121 of 1998, concerning certain Property listed in “Annexure B” IN THE APPLICATION FOR A PRESERVATION ORDER IN TERMS OF SECTION 98 OF ACT 121 OF 1998 (POCA ACT) NOTICE IN TERMS OF SECTION 39(1)(B) OF THE PREVENTION OF ORGANISED CIME ACT, NO. 121 OF 1996("THE acrh ‘This notice ie addressed to MeKincoy and Company Africa (Pty) Ltd; Thabiso Legoote; Veronica Magwontshu; Prakash Parbhoo; Jean Pierre Georges Desvaux; Tllian Capital Partners (Piy)Ltd; Eric Wood tilian Financial Advisory (Pty) td; Tebogo Leballo; Tillan Management Consuting {Piy)L; Johannes faure; Daniel Roy; Tillian Properties (Pty) Lick Tiilian Securities (ty) Ltd, and all other persons who have an itorest in the property o the property representing such property or the proceeds ‘of such property ("the propery’): ‘Take notice that: 4. The National Director of Publle Prosecutions ("National Director") has cbtained a preservation of property order (the ‘order, a copy of which is altachd to this notice, in terms of section 38(2) ofthe Act in respect ofthe property; 2. Ifyou have an interest In the property, you should understand that itis nov at risk. You would be well advised to obtain {egal advice on whether your Interest can be protecied and, iso, on how to protect i 3. You ave advised thatthe National Director wil, win 90 days of publication ofthis notice, apply to the High Court under section 48 of the Act for an ardor doclaring the property forelt tothe stato. The order wil remain in force until the application for a ferfelture order Is finalised, and until any forfeiture order that is made is satistiod; 4.fyou intend opposing the application fora forfeiture order, or you intend applying for an order excluding your intaast trom ‘a forfeiture order in respect of the property, you must enter an appearance In terms of the order. The requirements for such an ‘appearance are sot out in the order and ara also dea within sections 39(3), (4) and (8) of the Act. An appearance must comply x ‘Th Gaza eo avo rosie a wn.gpwenlineo 28 ¥ x fv‘Reproduced by Sabinet Onna in terms of Gosernment Prnter’s Copyright Authority No. 1450S dated 02 February 1998 STAATSKOERANT, 23 FEBRUARIE 2018, No. 41454 25 with these requirements; 65. Your attention is specticaly drawn to the 14-day time limit preseribed in section 39(4) for the entry of an appearance roferred to in paragraph 4 above; 6, you enter an appearance in terms of the order you willbe entitled to be given 14 days notice ofthe application by tho applicant fora forfeture order in respect of the property: 7. Ifyou fall to enter an appearance in tecms of the order or to comply with the above requirements, you wall not be given notice ofthe application fora forelture order and you wilt not be entitled to appear at the hearing of the application. In such a ‘case, the court may grant a default order forfetng the property to tho state under section 59 of the POCA; '8, You may, on good cause shown {Including the non-availabilly of any other suitable remedy to protect your legitimate ‘ghis or interests), on 72hours notice to the Applicant and within 6 days of becoming aware ofthe order, apply for reconsideration ofthe order; 9. Your are specifically advised that even If you intend applying for reconsideration ofthe preservation order inthis case, you ‘must, in adalton, comply with paragraphs 4 and 6 above If you intand to oppose the fortetture application subsequently. Faliure todo.so can result ina forfoture order being granted against the property by default and without further notice to you. 410, Whenever this order states that you must delver or eorve any notice, affidavit or othor procoss document on the applicant, you must daliver or serve them on the applicant atthe folowing address: STATE ATTORNEY, SALU Building, Ground Floor 316 Thabo Sehume Street, Pretoria 0001, Tel: 012 309 1677, Fax: 012 309 1649, Emall: RMathaga@justice.gov.2a ‘Reference number: Raymond Mathaga/ 8936/17/258. Any comespondonce or other enquires must also be drected to this Address or contaet number. ‘ANNEXURE B TO DRAFT ORDER ( THE PROPERTY) 1. The total amount of Fi 595 228 919.29, paid by the Eskom Holding Limited SOC Limited to McKinsey and Company ‘Atica Ply Limited and any ofits rated entities and substdares ( McKinsey) and (Telllan Capital Partners (Pty) Ltd and ary of ite gubsidiaries and relatod entties (Triian), which amounts were paid fo the aforesaid entities as follows: 41.1 the amount of 1 000 000 000.00 and any such further amounts pald to McKinsey in the following bank account ; Mekinsey Incorporated, Standard Bank Account No, 421081812 41.2 the total amount of R598 228 913.20 in Trllan Capital Partnors and te eubsidiarios including all amount in Titian ‘Management Consulting's Absa Bank account No, 4088410495 Bank account 2, Interest on the aforesaid amounts at 16.5%, which shall be calculated from the date of payment by Eskom tothe date the sald funds are pald back by one or mare of tha respective enttes and or recipients; 43, Any such further amounts and property as may be Identified as constituting and representing a portion of the amounts refered in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, as may be located and idaniied anywhere, locally and abroad. cgstNo:astarz0%8 IN THE HIott COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Z (Gauteng al Dison, Johannesburg) “ Johannesburg, 9 February 2010, belore the Honourable Acting Judge Inthe excparte application of Good Fellows Pawn Brokers (ty) Lt Applicant 7 4. Tha tho abovementioned Rospondon, is hereby placed under provisional wig up. 2. Thal the Respondent ard any ther party who wish o avid auch an ox ave cae upon io ecvance reasons any, wy thacout sha ert nel nang woe Reser on tach 208 2015, a 0 ore con erator 26 mao may be head Bi Case No: 7516/2016, IN-THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) PRETORIA, 0 January 2018, HONORABLE MR JUSTICE WABUSE IN THE MATTER BETWEEN BLUE MAGNOLIA TRADING 247 CC, Applicant and ZENALA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS CC ys (REG No: 2002/011013/28), Respondent F In re: LIQUIDATION __©” PROVINSIONAL LIQUIDATION ORDEA RETURNABLE 10 APRIL 2018 PROVISIONALW/NDING - UP ORDER & “Tis gaze ao avaiable tee nln at wiew.gpwontiae.so'za / PluHEAD OFFICE Tet +27 12.845 6000 xe #27 12 843 6732 Vitor & Grifiths Mxenge Building 423 Westlake Avenue ‘Weavind Park Silverton Pretoria ores PiBag X752 Pretoria 0001 South Attica Email: hen 2 wnww.npagov.za Asset Forfeiture Unit South Aes | Bowmans claire tucker@bowmanslaw.com 11 Alice Lane melissa.stydom@bowmanslaw.com Sandton Johannesburg Your ref: Claire TuckeriM Strydom Our ref: Priya Biseswar/Mir R Mathaga/2016/256 yo URGENT APPLICATION: ESKOM HOLDINGS (SOC) LIMITED/THE NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS & OTHERS (GD: PTA ~ CASE NO; 85105/17) Dear Madame 4. We refer to your urgent application of 26 March 2018 and the subsequent ‘Without Prejudice’ meeting between ourselves on the 28 March 2018 regarding the abovementioned matter. We confirm having advised you as follows; 4.1. that the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) | lodged the preservation proceedings with the view of seizing i and recovering R1,6 billion which was unlawfully paid to aforesaid amount constituted proceeds of unlawful activities; 4.2. that the NDPP is prepared to recognise that Eskom Hiding (Eskom) suffered the financial loss and accordingly may well have an interest in the aforesaid amount and that the NDPP v Justice in our society, so that people can live in freedom and security McKinsey and Trillian (Pty) Ltd respectively and that the | AV Page 813 24 22 ‘ recognises that Eskom has a direct and vested interest in the subject matier of the preservation and outcome of the envisaged forfeiture proceedings. that the NDPP will not oppose Eskom's late entry of appearance, in terms of section 49 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act, 1998 (the Act), including application for the joindor as a party to the forfeiture application as set out in prayer 2 of Part A of your Notice of Motion. Proposed Settlement With regard to the resolution of the matter relating to Eskom's interest in the entire application, we set out below 8 proposal in terms of how best to proceed and finalise the matter. ‘The NOPP will proceed with a forfeiture application, which wil be finalised in terms of a Settlement Agreement between the parties, which agreement will seek to achieve, amongst others, the following 2.2.4 to recognise and protect the interests of the NDPP and Eskom respectively, with the ultimately purpose of ensuring that Eskom is compensated the financial loss suffered; 2.2 that the respective and envisaged oil recovery processes by the NDPP and Eskom are recognised and harmonised with the view of ensuring the most equitable result and in the most cost effective manner, and Quided by the Constitution, we in the National Prosecuting AuwOITY wide d bY ne Char ine victims of crime by prosecuting wihou (cir aimee Wistiagiee and by working with our partners aad | ‘solve and proven crime2.3. that Eskom's interests, ie. the R1, 6 billion) will be recognised and protected within the context of the envisages 1d forfeiture proceedings! 3, We accordingly confirm that, we will immediately proceed with drafting a proposed forfeiture order that captures the intentions of the parties as stated above. 4, Lastly and as discussed, we confirm that you have given the following undertaken, which you further confirmed that you will provide in writing 4.4 that you will not proceed to enrol the pending urgent application of 10 April 2018; and 4.2 you will furthermore give the National Director of Public Prosecution 10 days’ notice should you decided to re-enrol your urgent application. 5, We trust the above correctly reflects the material terms and aspects of our discussions. Regards a os Z ADV. KNORX MOLELLE ACTING SPECIAL DIRECTOR ASSET FORFEITURE UNIT NATIONAL PROSECUTING AUTHORIY OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS