John Smith, a prominent businessman in Johannesburg, has been accused of orchestrating a large$-$scale fraud scheme involving his company, Smith Enterprises $($Pty$)$ Ltd$.$ It is alleged that John manipulated financial records, falsified invoices, and misappropriated company funds for personal gain. As the Principal Director of Smith Enterprises $($Pty$)$ Ltd$,$ John held significant executive authority within the company. This position gave him broad access to financial records and decision$-$making power over company expenditures. John was directly involved in authorising financial transactions within the company. This included approving payments, authorising withdrawals, and overseeing budget allocations. Evidence suggests that John used his position within the company to divert funds in an amount of R$13250000$ into an offshore account under his name for his personal benefit. John$$s fraudulent activities would include unauthorised transfers to personal accounts, extravagant personal expenses billed to the company and investments in personal ventures using company resources. Additionally, several employees of Smith Enterprises $($Pty$)$ Ltd$,$ including Mary Johnson and David Ngubo, are suspected of being complicit in the fraudulent activities. David Ngubo worked within the financial department of Smith Enterprises $($Pty$)$ Ltd$,$ which would have given him access to sensitive financial information and systems. David was involved in falsifying invoices under fictitious company names for large amounts, which payments were then transferred into the offshore account created by John. John would then pay David an amount of R$3000$ for every fraudulent invoice he created. David Ngubo had direct knowledge of the illicit activities occurring within the company. His participation indicates a willingness to engage in fraudulent behaviour and suggests a level of complicity beyond mere compliance with directives from superiors. In addition to direct financial gain David also received a promotion and other incentives provided by John. Mary Johnson also played an active role in facilitating John Smith's fraudulent activities. Mary was John$$s secretary$,$ and she was responsible for hiding crucial evidence from the police during the investigation. Mary would have been involved in altering financial records, or fabricating documents to cover up the fraudulent transactions orchestrated by John after he had made the fraudulent payments into his personal account. Mary facilitated communication between John and David, coordinating their efforts to manipulate records and carry out unauthorised transactions. John gave her an annual bonus and promised her job security for her work. Her active participation in concealing evidence suggests that she was aware of the illegal actions being perpetrated by John and potentially others within the company. The matter is referred to the Commercial Crimes Unit. The prosecutor approaches you as lead investigator and tasks you with evaluating the evidence in support of a successful prosecution. Explain the concept of competent verdicts in South African criminal procedure and discuss how it applies

to the charges of fraud against John, Mary and David in this case. In your answer you are required to

include a discussion on the role played by each of them in the perpetration of the crime and what the

implication thereof will be on the prosecution of the crimes