Menu Close

I lost my business because of a fake R7 million Nedbank loan

picture of a wine farm

A widow in her eighties hopes to secure millions of dollars in compensation for her family from a Jersey trust company following a complex court battle involving a South African wine farm, an alleged fraudulent £500,000 loan by Nedbank, and a multi-billion-dollar luxury company…all without the assistance of a paid attorney.

According to Balliwick Express, Dorothy Brakspear (83), who is currently representing her family in a case before the Royal Court, argues that the activities of Nedgroup Trust (Nedbank) have left her family severely out of pocket.

The Northampton-based retiree self-studied Jersey trust law in an attempt to sue the corporation for claimed breaches of confidence and a number of fictitious transactions.

Nedbank vehemently refutes all of her accusations and requests that the matter be dismissed, as South African courts have already ruled against the plaintiffs.

According to the Brakspears’ filing, the 13-year story began when Ian Brakspear, age 59, attempted to acquire a portion of an 85-hectare wine estate. This was done partially as an investment, but also to help obtain residency.

Mr. Brakspear desired to do so utilizing an offshore trust structure and consulted Nedbank for guidance. Allegedly, he was advised that the best method to accomplish this was to allow another party to “hold” the shares on his behalf so that he could enjoy the benefits of the wine vineyard without having his personal information made public. In addition, he was allegedly informed that his instructions would always be followed and that he would have the last say on all transactions.

Mrs. Brakspear said in a sworn testimony that Mr. Brakspear devoted his time and energy to farming, leaving his small children to go to Cape Town every two weeks.

After some time, Mr. Brakspear audited the farmland, only to discover that its assets were not as substantial as he had been led to believe.

Mr. Brakspear, desiring to create a boutique hotel and subdivide the land into numerous smaller wine estates so that it could be sold, talked with a number of architects and town planners at some expense to discuss his plans.

Despite reportedly being aware of the financial costs Mr. Brakspear was paying, Nedbank allegedly failed to reveal that the ownership of the land was organized in such a way that he could not profit from the farm or its sale.

In August of 2007, a purchaser appeared. They offered 37.75 million South African Rand (ZAR), or approximately £2.7 million, for the property.

However, once the Brakspears asserted that Nedbank leaked sensitive financial information about the seller, the transaction quickly fell through. After a period of time, the buyer reemerged with a new offer that was less than half of the previous amount. According to court filings, this led to a loss of ZAR 19.75 million.

Mr. Brakspear was dissatisfied with the move and told Nedbank of his plan to sue them for the losses he alleged they had caused him.

Johan Rupert, the owner of the multibillion-dollar luxury holdings company Richemont, whose brands include Chloé, Cartier, and Azzedine Alaa, intervened just prior to the completion of the acquisition. The fashion designer entrepreneur proposed to acquire the site for ZAR 25 million (£1.78 million) via his company Applemint.

However, when Mr. Brakspear told Nedbank of his desire to accept this new offer, the business allegedly stated that they would only agree if they could take at least ZAR 1 million (£71,000) and that Mr. Brakspear and Mrs. Brakspear release any potential claims against the company.

When the Brakspears disagreed, Nedbank allegedly filed a lawsuit against them in South African court. According to reports, the land was sold to pay off a false debt from a ‘loan’ that Mr. Brakspear claims he never asked or received. The Brakspears claim that these “false statements” resulted in hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal and liquidation fees.

Nonetheless, Nedbank rejects all of the allegations. Assisted by Attorney Mark Taylor, they are now attempting to dismiss the Brakspears’ claims on the grounds that the case has previously been heard by South African courts, which ruled against the claimants.

READ MORE: Home purchased 20 years ago for R100 returned to owner

They have also reserved the right to “argue more comprehensively against any paragraphs of the Order of Justice that survive the motion to strike.”

They also refused liability for any punitive costs, arguing that the claimants should instead pay their legal fees.

Related Posts