Over six years a credit clerk wove an intricate scam, stealing more than R18-million from her employer, International Slab Sales (ISS), which supplies quartz, granite and marble surfaces for kitchens and bathrooms.
Amanda Samuelson, who worked for ISS in Germiston, Gauteng, was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment by the Johannesburg specialised commercial crimes court on Monday for manipulating the account details of the company’s suppliers and creditors by “unlawfully” diverting payments due to them to bank accounts of her immediate relatives.
The owners of the two bank accounts Samuelson used cannot be named as they have yet to be charged.
Samuelson became more brazen as the years went by, starting off with stealing R996 720.08 from 53 transactions in 2011 to taking more than R6-million in 2015 from 42 fraudulent transactions. In 2012, she stole R1.3-million; in 2013, R3-million; in 2014, R5.8-million; and R850 005.26 in 2016.
Her ill-gotten gains in 2016 were from seven transactions in January and February of that year, when her plot was thwarted. Six of the seven 2016 transactions were for more than R100 000, and the seventh was R92 285.85.
Samuelson had committed 229 fraudulent transactions.
She had initially pleaded guilty but later changed her plea to not guilty “on the basis that it was not made freely and voluntarily”.
The state, in papers presented to court by prosecutor Frans Mhlongo, said Samuelson’s scam was foiled when an ISS supplier, Tenax SA, complained of having provided products but did not receive payment.
This was confirmed by Andrew Dua, the financial and operational director at ISS. According to court records, he investigated the non-payment of its supplier after Tenax SA had threatened not to deliver stock to ISS until the account was settled.
Court records show that Dua asked Samuelson about the non-payment of ISS’s supplier, and the fraudster simply said “she was attending to the Tenax account”.
“[Samuelson] subsequently emailed [Dua] the proof of payment to Tenax, which reflected the correct banking details of Tenax. He [Dua] later discovered that the proof of payment sent to him by [the fraudster] was forged and fabricated,” reads the court record.
After completing his investigation Dua then approached Rudi Eggers, ISS’s managing director, and it was decided to call Samuelson into Eggers’ office for her side of the story.
“The conversation that ensued in Mr Eggers office … was recorded wherein the accused confessed and admitted to them that she had manipulated the creditors reconciliation, [loaded] false payments and that, in doing so, she has been misappropriating funds from ISS.
“She further confessed to having taken a substantial amount from ISS and having opened banking accounts in her [relative’s] name without [the relative’s] knowledge, which version she later changed and stated that her [relative] accompanied her to the bank to open a bank account,” the court papers stated.
Samuelson’s relative and spouse then approached Eggers and ISS, telling the company that Samuelson had told them that “the funds were an inheritance from her mother and that [she] requested them on a regular basis to make significant cash withdrawals and hand it over to her”.
Samuelson had also told her relatives they could use the large sums of money entering their account, according to the court filings.
Samuelson claimed that she committed the crime because she was being extorted by a police officer, who had caught her driving drunk and was allegedly blackmailing her, saying he would tell her husband of her alleged road infringement.
She alleged the amount she had to pay was R100 000, otherwise the officer would also arrest her.
But the court rejected her defence, saying that her version was “simply not credible”.
“The accused had reasonable or ample opportunity to escape the threat over the period of the offences, which [was] from 27 January 2011 to 24 February 2016.
“The fear of arrest or exposure does not constitute duress; therefore the fear was unreasonable. The lapse of time also makes the defence of duress implausible,” reads the court’s findings. That her family members were to be informed of her arrest for drunken driving is not unlawful and cannot be regarded as duress; the accused, in fact, confesses to acts of corruption. The accused’s actions were vitiated by greed and not duress.
“The fact that her husband would react badly to learning of the accused position or actions can hardly be regarded as duress.
“The threat of the probability of arrest does not constitute duress or undue influence.”
[/membership]