DPCI Blunders: The R1. 2bn fraud that went unchecked
THE Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI), also known as the Hawks, tasked with tackling serious and organised crime, has come under intense scrutiny following revelations of systemic investigative failures in a monumental R1.2 billion fraud scheme.
The forensic report on a R1.2bn transnational criminal enterprise exposes a troubling pattern of neglect, mismanagement, and systemic obstruction that has hampered justice and allowed a criminal enterprise to operate unchecked across domestic and international borders.
The report was addressed to the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Police, the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services, and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
One of the most glaring shortcomings outlined in the report is the DPCI’s failure to employ even fundamental investigative procedures. The lead investigator, Lieutenant Colonel Tiwane, notoriously admitted on 19 June 2025 that the unit had not flagged the primary accused on its analytical systems.
As the report states: “When asked directly whether the primary accused, or his companies had been flagged on the DPCI’s analytical systems, Tiwane admitted: ‘No, we have not, Prof’.” This omission is described as “a staggering dereliction,” given that “the initial affidavit provided a wealth of information, including the accused’s identity number, details of his 153 active directorships, and a documented history of non-compliance with the Companies Act affecting over 46% of his corporate entities”.
The report emphasises the gravity of this failure: “Such information provides more than sufficient grounds for, at a minimum, placing a watch on the accused’s activities through internal systems like the Analyst’s Notebook.”
Furthermore, Tiwane justified this negligence by claiming, “we don’t have grounds to”, a justification deemed “legally and professionally untenable”. The report clarifies: “The standard required is not conclusive proof of a crime, but a prima facie case or a reasonable suspicion. The detailed affidavit, coupled with public admissions by the accused of fraud and theft in the media, overwhelmingly met this standard.”
This dismissive attitude, described as “either a reflection of gross incompetence or a disingenuous excuse for inaction”, allowed the criminal enterprise to continue unmonitored and unchallenged.
When reached for comment, the DPCI spokesperson Brigadier Thandi Mbambo said: “Please take note that this matter is still under investigation and we cannot disclose details thereof, so as to protect the integrity of the investigation.”
The report underscores the DPCI’s alarming lack of action in response to direct admissions of criminal conduct. Specifically, it highlights the case of the Business Rescue Practitioner (BRP), Zaheer Cassim, whose attorney explicitly acknowledged the existence of “different other companies… established for the purposes of hiding money” and admitted that “misrepresentation and probably money laundering” was taking place.
Cassim did not respond to questions.
As the report states: “These are not vague allegations; they are direct admissions from a legal representative for an officer of the court, confirming the existence of a criminal enterprise designed to launder money.”
Despite this clear and compelling evidence, the investigation was characterised by “passivity”, with Tiwane stating, “we are basically going to look into that”, instead of taking immediate, decisive steps such as securing search and seizure warrants or effecting arrests. The report condemns this response as “a gross dereliction of duty”, emphasising that “this failure to act decisively provides the suspects with invaluable time to continue their efforts to conceal the proceeds of crime, directly prejudicing the investigation and any prospect of recovery”.
The failure to investigate the fraud’s premeditated and systemic nature is further illustrated by the report’s assertion that “the DPCI has failed to appreciate that this was not a business failure, but a meticulously planned criminal conspiracy”. The investigation neglected to leverage available evidence and failed to understand the multiyear timeline of concealment and fraud, described as “active concealment in anticipation of collapse”.
Beyond individual officers, the report paints a picture of a broader breakdown within the investigative chain of command. It highlights that “the failures are not isolated to the investigating officer”, but are symptomatic of a “breakdown in the chain of command”, exemplified by “a Brigadier actively obstructing prosecutorial cooperation and a Major General passively accepting gross and unjustifiable delays in a priority crime investigation”.
One of the most critical failures cited is the DPCI’s inability to investigate a transnational criminal enterprise. The report states: “Perhaps the most glaring failure of the DPCI is its complete inability to detect the international dimensions of this R1.2 billion criminal enterprise.”
It describes how “the investigation uncovered a sophisticated transnational apparatus designed to launder the proceeds of the fraud”, yet this was entirely missed by the DPCI, which confined its focus to domestic matters.
A prime example of this negligence is the dismantling of “Enable Capital Limited” in the British Virgin Islands (BVI) and the subsequent reincorporation of another entity with the same name in the United Kingdom. This manoeuvre was designed to “create a discontinuous audit trail, making it exceptionally difficult to trace the flow of stolen South African funds into the global financial system through a seemingly legitimate” structure, a scheme wholly overlooked by the DPCI.
The report condemns the DPCI for neglecting its obligation to investigate and act upon evidence of statutory offences committed by professional enablers. Among the egregious lapses is the failure to investigate the conduct of Bashier Adam, chief executive of Nexia SAB&T, who was implicated in a catastrophic conflict of interest.
The findings reveal that “Adam was not only responsible for the objective audit of the companies but was also personally investing R17 million in the scheme he audited”, and he “did not alert the GEPF or other clients of the risks involved”, allowing more than R100m of public pensions to be looted.
Furthermore, the report details that: “The DPCI is aware of, yet has failed to investigate, overwhelming evidence that the BRP, Cassim, and auditor, Adam, have themselves committed criminal offences”. This includes the submission of a fraudulent affidavit by Cassim and ethical breaches by Adam. The report claims that “by allowing these individuals to operate with impunity, the DPCI is effectively complicit in the ongoing obstruction of justice.”
When reached, Adam rejected allegations linking him and his firm, insisting there was no investment in any fraudulent enterprise and no conflict of interest in audit work. “You have not mentioned names of implicated companies or individuals, but … we assume that you are referring to Enable Capital Receivables Finance,” Adam said. “Our firm has not invested in Enable Capital Receivables Finance or any other ‘fraud scheme’ for that matter.”
Responding to suggestions that he failed to alert the Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF) and other clients to risks, Adam said he could not address unspecified claims. “As stated above, we have not invested in any fraud scheme. Without the context of this alleged finding or the specific circumstances, we are unable to provide further comment regarding this question.”
He denied accusations of ethical breaches and responsibility for losses exceeding R100m in public pensions. “We have not had sight of the report or the basis of the alleged ethical breaches. However, we categorically deny any involvement that could have contributed to losses suffered by any investors, pension funds, or other stakeholders.”
On the question of auditing companies allegedly linked to fraud while holding a financial interest, Adam said his firm had no such stake and followed established standards. “Our firm does not have a financial stake in any ‘fraud scheme’. Our audit processes are conducted in full compliance with the International Standards on Auditing.”
He also rejected claims that his conduct enabled a criminal enterprise or obstructed justice. “Such claims are false and devoid of any truth … we categorically state that at no stage have we been, nor would we ever be, involved in any conduct that could obstruct justice.”
Adam said no investigators had approached him or his firm. “We confirm that we have not, to date, been contacted by any investigative authorities in relation to this matter. Should we be approached by any such authority, we will provide our cooperation.”
Overall, the report paints a damning picture of systemic failure within the DPCI, characterised by “a systemic breakdown in command” and “gross delays”, which have “obstructed and neglected from within” the investigation.
It criticises the unit’s “failure to obtain and review a critical piece of evidence”, namely an affidavit from a related inquiry in Cape Town, which allegedly detailed the loss of funds by the accused. “His refusal to provide a direct answer is a tacit admission of this failure,” states the report, adding that “the inability to secure a digital copy of a key affidavit over six months is inexcusable.”
The forensic report delivers a stark verdict: The DPCI’s investigation into one of South Africa’s largest fraud schemes has been grossly inadequate. Its failures to employ basic investigative procedures, act decisively on evidence, and investigate professional enablers and transnational dimensions represent fundamental miscarriages of justice.
These systemic flaws have not only delayed accountability but have effectively allowed a criminal enterprise to operate with impunity, threatening public trust in the nation’s law enforcement institutions. Urgent reforms, accountability for failures, and a renewed focus on proactive investigation are imperative to prevent similar debacles in the future.