Menu Close

Teen arrested for money laundering

teen arrested for money laundering

On the same day that Cyril Ramaphosa is cleared of money laundering by hiding millions of undeclared US dollars in mattresses and sofas, a 19-year-old teen was arrested for being in possession of R1.6 million.

The Vuwani Magistrates Court heard the case of a 19-year-old teen who, according to the prosecution, had R1.6 million in his home and was charged with money laundering as a result of the incident. Nedzanani Vhugala Thivhilaeli, 19, was reportedly arrested with piles of cash in various plastic bags, according to Warrant Officer Lethunya Mmuraa, who is the spokesperson for Hawks Limpopo.

READ MORE: ATM’s troubled by SIU’s silence regarding Phala Phala

“It has been brought to the attention of the Police that there may have been illegal activity going on at a residence in Vuwani. “After we had finished our preliminary investigation, we asked for a search warrant,” Mmuuroa explained.

19 yr old teen arrested and appears in court for money laundering.

“The search and seizure operation was led by Thohoyandou-based Hawks’ serious organized crime investigation,” Mmuroa said. “Assistance was provided by Vuwani crime prevention members, serious corruption crime investigation, tactical response team (TRT), and Local Criminal Record Centre (LCRC”).

When the team arrived at the house that had been identified, they discovered that Thivhilaeli was present at the location.

The search warrant was shown to the team, and they immediately began looking through the house. The group found three plastic containers containing a total of more than R1.6 million in cash and recovered them. “The suspect was immediately taken into custody, and the money that was recovered was taken by the Hawks,” Mmuroa said.

READ MORE: Buffalo buyer with ‘shady’ past claims he did not know Ramaphosa was involved in deal

The hearing regarding the bail application for Thivhilaeli has been continued until July 7th.

Acting PP Gcaleka clears Ramaphosa for hiding undeclared cash in sofas and mattresses

Meanwhile, on the very same day, the investigation into the scandal involving the Phala Phala farm by the acting Public Protector exonerated President Cyril Ramaphosa of any responsibility for any wrongdoing.

ramaphosa cleared for money laundering committed at his phala phala farm

Kholeka Gcaleka, the acting Public Protector, has published a report in which she concludes that President Cyril Ramaphosa did not violate the Executive Code of Ethics in the way that he handled the Phala Phala scandal.

Gcaleka went on to say that the president’s interests and his own about the aforementioned farm did not compete with one another in any way.

The opposition parties complained after it came to light in June of the previous year that a total of $582 000 had been taken from Ramaphosa’s farm in the province of Limpopo.

acting public protector kholeka gcaleka cleared ramaphosa for money laundering

According to what Gcaleka had previously determined, Ramaphosa was not involved in the sale of buffalo to a Sudanese businessman Hazim Mustafa, who is based in Dubai.

Friday saw the publication of Gcaleka’s findings on the Phala Phala investigation.

READ MORE: Daring fraudster arrested in Durban for R18Mil scheme

Her report stated that there was no evidence to support the allegation that Ramaphosa had broken the Ethics Code, even though he admitted to having undeclared US Dollars stashed in his home, failed to report their theft, and broke various laws.

What laws did Ramaphosa break?

According to a panel appointed by the speaker, there is “prima facie” evidence that President Cyril Ramaphosa violated anti-corruption laws in the Phala Phala affair.

The investigation, led by former chief justice Sandile Ngcobo, concluded that Ramaphosa may have violated section 34(1) of The Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act.

The report states, “The president committed serious misconduct by acting in a manner inconsistent with his office, in violation of section 96(2)(b).” In addition, he violated section 96(2)(b) by placing himself in a situation involving a conflict between his official duties and his private interests.”

.

Related Posts