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.

QUESTION $1$: $($REFER TO THE CASE SCENARIO ABOVE$)$

Analyse the applicability of Section $105$A of the Criminal Procedure Act $51$ of $1977$ in the prosecution of

the fraud charges against John Smith and his accomplices. Discuss the procedural requirements and legal

considerationsin respect of plea bargaining under Section $105$A$,$ emphasising its relevance to fraud cases.

$[10$ marks$]$