Juan Hattingh was a young practicing attorney and conveyancer with a portfolio of high profile clients that included four important South African banks, namely, ABSA, Standard Bank, First National Bank, and Nedbank. Apart from his firm, Hattingh Attorneys, of which he was the sole proprietor, he also held interests in other local firms of attorneys. As his practice flourished, he ventured into other enterprises such as property development and construction.
In 2011, he pleaded guilty to a sophisticated scheme of fraud, theft, and money laundering in which he utilized his professional attorney’s trust account for criminal purposes.
The scheme included the registration of properties acquired by Hattingh under the names of friends and relatives, double-bonded properties, and the use of his trust account as a deposit for the stolen funds. “In other words, he had operated his trust account as a vehicle through which to launder the proceeds of his unlawful activities.” (Hamman & Koen, 2012).
Hattingh was convicted of 64 counts of fraud, one count of theft and one count of money laundering. He received an effective term of 20 years' imprisonment for the charges of fraud and theft, and a suspended sentence of 8 years' imprisonment for the charge of money laundering.
Additionally, the Law Society successfully applied to have his name struck off the roll of practicing attorneys.
On appeal against the sentences imposed on him in respect of the fraud charges, he contended that the trial court had sentenced him beyond the scope of his guilty plea and had overlooked mitigating factors. The Supreme Court of Appeal agreed with him and reduced his sentence to 12 years' imprisonment for the charge of fraud.
Bloemfontein Regional Court
The defendant was convicted based on a guilty plea. He admitted to the material elements of the various offences and the underlying facts, but not the amount involved regarding 32 of the 64 counts of fraud.
In sentencing the defendant, the court considered that there were serious aggravating factors such as his position of trust in relation to clients, and that he was a fugitive from justice from some time before he cooperated with the police.
The defendant was sentenced by the court as follows:
- Counts 1 to 32: 10 years' imprisonment
- Counts 33 to 64: 10 years' imprisonment
- Count 65: 6 years' imprisonment
- Count 66: 8 years' imprisonment, conditionally suspended
High Court of South Africa (Free State Division)
The defendant appealed against the sentence as regards to the fraud charges imposed at first instance, contending that the sentence was exceedingly disproportionate to the crime(s) he committed and that the trial court went beyond the scope of his plea. The hearing in the appellate court took place on 14 October 2013. The Court once more emphasized the aggravating cirumstances and dissmissed the defendant's appeal.
Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa
The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa, who heard his case on 20 May 2015.
In his guilty plea, Hattingh admitted only to the material elements and underlying facts of the offences, not the amount involved regarding 32 of the 64 counts of fraud. He contended on appeal that the resulting mitigating factors were not taken into account by the decisions of the Bloemfontein Regional Court and the High Court, and that he was sentenced beyond the scope of his plea. The appeal was upheld by the Supreme Court of Appeal. The sentences imposed by the trial court in respect of the counts of fraud were set aside and substituted them as follows:
(i) On counts 1 to 64 the accused was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment.
(ii) The sentence of six years’ imprisonment imposed in respect of count 65 was ordered to run concurrently with the sentence imposed in respect of counts 1 to 64.
(iii) The sentence was ante-dated to 23 May 2011.
Juan Hattingh was a practicing attorney with a portolio of high profile clients that included several banks.
Fraud (counts 1–64)
Theft (count 65)
Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998 s 4(a)
Money laundering (count 66)
Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa
This case exposed the use of an attorney’s trust account as a vehicle for money laundering.