Search results

Illicit enrichment refers to the unjustified increase in the assets of a public official. Criminalisation of illicit enrichment is required under Article 20 of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, and as a State Party, South Africa is thus expected to deal effectively with illicit enrichment as an offence. This paper aims to address different approaches of various jurisdictions to deal with illicit enrichment and discusses the elements of the crime, drawing on a South African perspective, to determine how illicit enrichment can be criminalised in South Africa.

The research methodology used was a critical analysis of the definition and elements of the crime, as well as the global action taken to implement this offence. A comparative analysis was used to compare international frameworks with those of South Africa to conclude on the practicality and challenges of introducing the offence of illicit enrichment.

It was found that an element of the crime, in particular the lack of justification, has been a primary point of criticism, as it is claimed that illicit enrichment laws reverse the burden of proof when an accused is required to prove the legitimacy of his or her assets. However, this issue is not insurmountable in the South African context, and the paper concludes that the criminalisation of illicit enrichment is possible, as South Africa possesses the necessary legislation and case law to support such measure.

This paper contributes to the scholarly research on criminalising illicit enrichment in South Africa.

This paper aims to focus on the use of unexplained wealth orders (UWOs) in South Africa as a civil method to act upon lifestyle audit results that have indicated wealth from unknown, possibly unlawful, sources.

This paper applied a comparative methodology. Legislation and the application of UWOs in Ireland, the UK and Australia were compared with the situation in South Africa.

It is proposed that South Africa includes UWO legislation within its Prevention of Organised Crime Act or be established as a separate piece of legislation. Also, South Africa should follow both the civil and criminal route to target the proceeds of crime.

Corruption in South Africa is rampant and, without the necessary legislation, impossible to fight. For these purposes, this paper proposes measures to be used from a civil forfeiture perspective.

President Cyril Ramaphosa, in his 2018 State of the Nation Address, stated that “Thieves who are stealing public funds should be arrested and prosecuted”, and called for lifestyle audits of public-sector employees. The gross misuse of COVID-19 relief funds by public officials indicated the urgent need to execute these audits as an anti-corruption measure. This paper aims to provide a review of the existing state of affairs with regard to the application of lifestyle audits in South Africa.

This paper critically analyses the literature available on the current position of South Africa concerning lifestyle audits in the public sector, based on the mandates of some of the anti-corruption agencies that could be responsible for the conducting and processing of such audits.

South Africa has only recently seen a framework for applying lifestyle audits, developed by the Department of Public Service and Administration. Although these first steps in developing a standard practice are laudable, the practical process of dealing with misconduct and/or criminal matters remains to be seen. It is recommended that South Africa consider a legislative approach to dealing with unlawfully obtained wealth by either criminalising the act of illicit enrichment (per the United Nations Convention Against Corruption) or creating an Unexplained Wealth Order, as seen, for example, in the UK.

South Africa is in dire need of addressing corruption in the public sector. Despite lifestyle audits being called for, the lack of proper implementation is negating any positive outcomes. Therefore, alternative solutions should be investigated.