Get-rid-of-creditors-scheme busted

Special Investigations

Author: Tony Beamish|

Cricket legend Daryll Cullinan one of many 'beneficiaries.'

A sequestration order against former SA cricket legend Daryll Cullinan has lifted the lid of what looks like a big get-rid-of-your-creditors scheme.

A quasi attorney Ben de Wet runs the scam from Alberton on the East Rand. This scam may also be linked to another scam where court files disappear from the General Office of the South Gauteng High Court (SGHC).

De Wet claims he is an attorney, but there is no record at the Law Society of the Northern Provinces of him ever being admitted as such.

Moneyweb’s investigation started last week when we visited the SGHC to view the sequestration application broughtagainst Cullinan. It was during this visit that we uncovered a racket where rapid access to court documents was up for sale. Moneyweb wrote about the story and it lead to the arrest of at least one individual. Read 'Court in the act' for the full story.

We went back this week and accessed Cullinan’s file.

The scheme works as follows

From our investigation it appears as if the scam works as follows:

Indebted individuals, who want to shake off their creditors and avoid the pitfalls of debt administration, approach de Wet through his firm Azrapix Investments.

The indebted individual then pays an amount to Azrapix. In at least one case this amount was R15 000. Azrapix then proceeds to bring a sequestration application against the individual.

Once a judge grants a final sequestration order, the indebted individual’s estate is placed in the hands of the Master of the High Court (the master). The master then appoints a trustee to wind up the estate and to pay creditors.

Immediately after the order is granted, documents are removed from the court file. In all seven cases Moneyweb investigated, notice of motion and affidavits were removed. Only the actual court orders remained.

Despite the permanent removal of documents from such a file being illegal, it also prevents anyone from the public from seeing the details of the alleged indebtedness of the debtor. This makes it extremely difficult for other creditors to intervene in the litigation or institute a claim against the estate.

To make it even more difficult, in six of the seven cases Moneyweb investigated, no trustee was appointed.

This scam puts the lid on nearly all of a debtor’s obligations.

Here follows the details of the seven sequestration applications brought by Azrapix in the SGHC in 2013.

Cullinan, Daryll John

The sequestration application and notice of motion were not in the court file. It only contained the provisional and final sequestration orders. The final order was dated September 13, 2013.

Cullinan was sequestrated on account of an alleged indebtedness to Azrapix amounting to R19 300. Read the invoice here.

This is the only Azrapix matter in which the master could find a reference number. In this file we found an unsigned copy of the founding affidavit of Benjamin de Wet, who describes himself as “the only member” of Azrapix. His affidavit is replete with incorrect allegations. This journalist has only ever come across such errors where affidavits are produced hurriedly and en masse for litigation.

Here are a few of the errors:

· The identity number attributed to Cullinan is that of Elizabeth Oosthuizen, whom Azrapix previously sequestrated.

· The affidavit says the respondent is unmarried. In fact, Cullinan was married for over a year before he allegedly engaged the ‘services’ of Azrapix and remains married to this day.

· Azrapix’s claim was for, “services rendered by the applicant to the respondent (Cullinan) at her special instance and request…”

It appears as if Marius Verster MD of BMV Attorneys is the attorney of record in the case as the reference “MWV/BEN DE WET” appears on the court papers. Verster denies having drafted the affidavit for de Wet, but could not tell Moneyweb who had drafted it.

In reaction to questions from Moneyweb, Verster said: “I wish to friendly point out to you that my firm also attends to conveyancing matters where we handle large sums of money on behalf of trust creditors. Trust is the cornerstone of these instructions. Your story aims to destroy my reputation and credibility and I re-iterate that I will not just stand idly by and allow that to happen. I trust that you will be guided accordingly in your proposed reporting.”

In response to questions from Moneyweb, Cullinan told Moneyweb: “You are most welcome to publish your story. Where I am legally asked to assist in any investigation, I will gladly cooperate.”

Read his full response here.

De Beer, Luana

The sequestration application and notice of motion were missing from the court file. The file only contained the provisional sequestration order dated May 15, 2013. The final order was granted on June 10, 2013.

Moneyweb phoned de Beer and asked her about the nature of her contractual relationship with Azrapix.

Initially she was very friendly and said she was referred to Azrapix by a friend, who was happy with the result. De Beer said she had incurred debt of around R100 000 and wanted to shake off the creditors. She said she paid Azrapix a few thousand rand, and she was happy with the result.

She initially agreed to meet Moneyweb to discuss the case, but soon after an SMS was sent to her following the conversation, she got cold feet. The SMS Moneyweb sent read: Thanks for the chat. I’ll phone you later today, Tony Beamish.

She promptly replied: “Please don’t.”

The Master told Moneyweb that he has no record of this sequestration. This means that Azrapix has not lodged a claim for the alleged debt used to sequestrate de Beer. This is an anomaly, as the creditor would not bring an application for sequestration if it does not claim the debt from the insolvent estate.

Oberholzer, Machiel Johannes

The sequestration Application and Notice of Motion were not in the court file. It only contained the provisional and final sequestration orders. The final order was dated May 21, 2013.

Moneyweb telephoned Oberholzer explaining who we were. He cheerfully took over the conversation until we asked him about the precise nature of his contractual relationship with Azrapix. Inexplicably the line became so bad he could not longer hear us. When we tried to phone back he repeatedly dodged our calls. We gave up.