Full Youtube Podcast about Peet Viljoen’s Disbarment
Chapter One: A Lawyer at the Peak
His law firm, Peet Viljoen Incorporated, handled some of the biggest clients in
South Africa. Among them was Consus asset management, one of Korea’s
largest fund managers. At one point, over R240 million lay in his firm’s trust
account.
It was more than just money. It was trust.
“Your reputation is your currency,” Peet often said. “Lose that, and you have
nothing.”
⸻
The Man Behind the Name
Peet had built his practice the hard way. He wasn’t part of the Law Society’s
“old boys’ club.” He wasn’t plugged into the political networks that shielded
other attorneys. He succeeded because he was meticulous, independent, and
uncompromising on integrity.
That made him valuable to international investors
—
but resented by peers.
⸻
Silver Lakes and Success
At home in Silver Lakes Golf Estate, Peet lived a life many envied. His garage
held Ferraris and German sedans. His children played safely in the streets,
often with the children of Herman Marx, a neighbor and friend who would
later become one of his bitterest betrayers.
Success was visible, and visibility is dangerous.
⸻
Johannesburg, 2010
The city was booming with preparations for the FIFA World Cup. Development
was everywhere, and at the heart of it sat the Johannesburg Property
Company (JPC), guardian of municipal land.
On paper, the JPC was meant to protect the city’s assets. In practice, it
became a goldmine for insiders.
Peet would later submit evidence to inquiries showing how developers and
attorneys looted it:
“Both complainants did their own negotiations at Council. I was the only
person blowing the whistle when the possible fraud came to our attention.”
But in 2010, standing on the edge of this storm, Peet was still just the
respected attorney. The Ferraris. The trust accounts. The enviable lifestyle.
The man at the peak.
⸻
Foreshadowing the Fall
In hindsight, the warning signs were clear:
• A Law Society with personal vendettas against “outsiders.”
• A city system rife with corruption.
• Developers who saw ethics as obstacles.
• Police investigators who would later be shown to be compromised.
The seeds of betrayal were already planted.
Fifteen years later, in April 2024, the High Court would confirm what Peet had
always known:
“The charges were not read out to the accused… the accused were not
warned of minimum sentences… the proceedings to date in the court a quo
are hereby set aside.”【User Verdict Text L5-L13】
But in 2010, that vindication was still far away.
All anyone saw was the successful attorney. And all it would take was five
weeks to strip it all away.
⸻
Reflection
Standing in court in 2024, waiting for the judges to hand down the verdict that
would erase 399 charges, Peet looked back at 2010 with bitter clarity:
“I thought exposing fraud would protect me. Instead, it made me their
target.”
The story of his fall didn’t begin in the courtroom. It began in boardrooms and
golf estates, with whispers of envy, with colleagues who thought him too
flashy, too successful, too independent.
The man at the peak was about to be cast as the perfect scapegoat.
⸻
Chapter Two: The Fatal Introduction
Every storm begins with a meeting. For Peet, that meeting came through a
client named Wiets Nel. Nel was the connector type
—
always in the middle of
deals, always knowing someone who knew someone else.
In early 2010, he brought Peet into contact with attorney: Edwin Maringa and
legal practice manager Wayne Ernest Afrika (Sole director of the “front”
company Eildough) . They claimed to have something priceless: the mandate
from the Johannesburg Property Company (JPC) to sell prime municipal land.
Their pitch was simple:
“We have the mandate. You have clients. Bring them to us, and you’ll be
rewarded.”
For Peet, this sounded like routine business. Attorneys often introduced
developers to sellers, signed commission agreements, and acted as
correspondents when deals closed. His role would be limited. He had no
reason to suspect the noose was already tightening around him, as
Dimension Data, one of the world’s largest technology companies had just
purchased some of thebproperty: Erf 1 Sandton.
⸻
The Players Enter
Through Nel, Peet introduced two heavyweight developers:
• Zunaid Moti
—
flamboyant, wealthy, and dangerous. He operated
through Abalengani Ancillary Services. Peet knew him as a man who always
moved fast and loud.
• Herman Marx
—
a trusted neighbor from Silver Lakes Golf Estate.
Owner of Group 6 Developers, he was experienced, respected, and, to Peet, a
friend.
Peet formalized his role with commission agreements. His firm, Peet Viljoen
Incorporated, would act only as correspondent attorneys based near the
deeds office. No negotiations. No representations. Just paperwork.
That distinction would later vanish in the fog of accusations.
⸻
Profile: Zunaid Moti
—
The Flamboyant Fraudster
The records later revealed how Moti operated:
• He ignored Supreme Court interdicts, buying 28 more properties
through shells like Zambrotti Investments and Investafin.
• He placed front directors
—
Irshad Sulliman, Martha Bradley
—
to
disguise his role.
• He forged Peet’s firm’s letterhead to fabricate documents.
• He openly bragged about VAT scams, claiming: pay R12 million,
claim back against inflated R100 million valuations.
• He admitted borrowing money from Radovan Krejčíř, a notorious
crime boss, to finance deals.
Peet later texted the Hawks’ head, Genl. Sibiya, to explain:
“It should leave no doubt that I was framed. The corruption should be put at
the door of Maringa and his council buddies. Both complainants did their
own negotiations at council. I was the only person blowing the whistle.”
Instead of investigating Moti, Sibiya told him:
“Stop talking bad about him or any person involved for peace’s sake.”
⸻
Profile: Herman Marx
—
The Neighbor Turned Betrayer
Marx was the betrayal that cut deep.
At the 2013 Regulation 8(bis) Inquiry, Marx admitted:
Q: Did you pay for Erf 794 Gallo Manor?
Marx: No.
Q: Did you pay transfer duty on Portion 1 Erf 77 Sandown?
Marx: No, I received it for free.
The panel’s conclusion was unforgettable:
“There is something very, very rotten in the state of Denmark.”
Despite this, Marx walked away untouched. Instead, Peet became the focus.
⸻
Six Weeks of Destruction
Everything unraveled in just six weeks:
• March 2010: JPC issues interdicts
—
Helen Botes hadn’t signed.
• 10 March: Marx and the Joncks receive interdicts proving fraud but
proceed anyway.
• 16 March: Marx phones Peet
—
“There’s trouble. Fraud.”
• Peet writes letters, gathers evidence, tries to stop the rot.
• Forged contracts using Peet’s letterhead appear.
• VAT scams and addendums slash purchase prices.
• Properties flip into the hands of Moti, Marx, and their shells.
Instead of seeing him as the man who tried to stop it, they began reshaping
the narrative: Peet wasn’t the whistleblower. He was the mastermind.
⸻
Reflection
Looking back, Peet described it as a blur:
“It was like watching a storm build over the horizon. By the time I realized it
was heading straight for me, I was already standing in the middle of it.”
Six weeks. That’s all it took for a career built on integrity to begin collapsing
under the weight of lies.
⸻
Chapter Three: Cracks in the Deal
On 16 March 2010, the phone rang.
It was Herman Marx, the neighbor, friend, and developer Peet had vouched
for. His voice carried alarm.
“There’s trouble. Fraud.”
That was the moment the storm broke.
⸻
The Interdicts
The Johannesburg Property Company (JPC) had begun issuing urgent
interdicts. Their Managing Director, Helen Botes, was the only official
authorised to sign transfers. Her absence made everything unravel.
The record later confirmed the timeline:
“On 10 March 2010, Marx and Jonck were already in possession of the
interdicts proving the transactions were fraudulent. Despite this, they
proceeded with the transfers.”
—
Regulation 8(bis) Inquiry, 2013
The law was clear: they had knowingly taken stolen property. But instead of
stopping, they pushed forward.
⸻
Peet’s Reaction
Peet’s instincts were immediate.
• (Peet raises concerns to `JHB property company, The JPC, on their
own letterhead from their official email address, sites, Peet’s concerns as
premature and is instructed to proceed with registrations. He drafted letters
to Maringa, demanding explanations.
• Peet refuses. He attempted to contact Botes, learning she was
abroad in France.
• He began compiling the mounting evidence.
What he discovered shook him: contracts circulating on his own firm’s
letterhead
—
but they were very clearly forgeries.
As he explained at the 2013 inquiry:
“If I had intent to steal, I would never have paid Maringa. The complainants
did their own negotiations at Council. I was the only person blowing the
whistle when the possible fraud came to our attention.”
⸻
The Proof Against Marx
At the same inquiry, Marx’s contradictions piled up:
Q: Did you pay for Erf 794 Gallo Manor?
Marx: No.
Q: Did you pay transfer duty on Portion 1 Erf 77 Sandown?
Marx: No, I received it for free.
The panel’s frustration was obvious:
“There is something very, very rotten in the state of Denmark.”
—
Fidelity
Fund Chairman, 2013
Yet Marx remained untouched. The spotlight shifted instead to Peet.
⸻
The Perfect Storm
By late March, the pattern was unmistakable:
• Properties were flipping under fraudulent leases.
• VAT scams were engineered into contracts, slashing purchase
prices by 70%.
• Interdicts were ignored.
• Forgeries on Peet’s firm’s letterhead were circulating.
• Developers like Moti and Marx were profiting, while laying the
groundwork to paint Peet as complicit.
In six weeks, the groundwork for a frame-up had been set.
⸻
Reflection
Looking back, Peet described those days as surreal:
“I thought exposing the fraud would protect me. Instead, it made me their
target.”
The cracks in the deal had become fractures. But instead of collapsing on the
guilty, the collapse would bury him.
The whistleblower had been marked as the scapegoat.
Chapter Four: Whistleblower or Scapegoat
Whistleblowers in South Africa don’t get medals. They get marked.
By late March 2010, Peet had done everything a principled lawyer was
supposed to do:
• He wrote letters.
• He warned officials.
• He reported fraud.
• He even opened his files to journalists.
But instead of being thanked, the retaliation began.
⸻
Letters and Warnings
When the interdicts started, Peet confronted the system head-on. He pressed
Helen Botes, Managing Director of the JPC, to explain why transfers were
proceeding without her authority. He pushed MMC Oupa Monareng to act
against fraudsters.
In later correspondence, Peet would remind the authorities:
“Both complainants did their own negotiations at Council. I was the only
person blowing the whistle when the possible fraud came to our attention.”
But accountability was not what officials wanted. They wanted silence.
⸻
The Bribes
Behind closed doors, emissaries approached Peet. Money was on the table.
All he had to do was step back, stop writing letters, stop talking to
journalists, and the storm would pass.
He refused.
That refusal turned him from nuisance to enemy.
⸻
Carte Blanche
In a bold move, Peet gave documents to Carte Blanche, South Africa’s
premier investigative television program. The evidence showed irregularities,
fraudulent leases, and bribes.
For the fraudsters, it was the worst-case scenario: exposure on national
television.
For Peet, it was the moment the crosshairs shifted squarely onto him.
Carte Blanche believed Peet and aired his version of events.They investigated
everything thoroughly, but shortly that was silenced and shut down too. The
Managing Director of Carte Blanche said : “it is getting too hot”
⸻
The Narrative Flips
Soon after, the story began to twist. Peet wasn’t the whistleblower anymore.
He was being painted as the mastermind.
At inquiries, complainants like Marx and Jonck
—
who had received interdicts
and proceeded anyway
—
positioned themselves as victims. Moti, who forged
Peet’s letterhead, now claimed he was defrauded.
The 2013 Fidelity Fund Inquiry even recorded the absurdity:
“There is something very, very rotten in the state of Denmark… The state of
Denmark is extremely rotten as far as the facts that were presented to us are
concerned.”
—
Fidelity Fund Chairman
Yet instead of clearing Peet, the system doubled down on him.
⸻
The Hawks Begin to Circle
At the onset of the JPC investigation, Peet tendered all his receipts but
caution that that Captain Jan Judeel that would later arrest Peet, is a puppet
for and works for Zunaid Moti.
Peet was not only ignored but actively targeted.
In WhatsApp chats with General Shadrack Sibiya, head of the Hawks, Peet
pleaded for action:
“Please spend time with the docs I gave you. It should leave no doubt that I
was framed. The corruption should be put at the door of Maringa and his
council buddies.”
Sibiya’s response was chilling:
“Moti is agreeing… Stop talking bad about him or any person involved for
peace’s sake.”
The head of the Hawks wasn’t investigating the fraud. He was pressuring
Peet to keep quiet.
⸻
The Shift
From that moment, the course was set.
• The developers were treated as complainants.
• The true fraud was buried.
• And Peet, the only one who had raised the alarm, became the
accused.
⸻
Reflection
“I thought showing them the evidence would stop the fraud. Instead, it made
me the problem they needed to get rid of.”
—
Peet
In the eyes of the system, Peet had crossed a line. He wasn’t just exposing
corruption. He was exposing the people who profited from it.
And for that, he would be recast not as the whistleblower, but as the
scapegoat.
⸻
Chapter Five: The Betrayals of Moti and Marx
If betrayal by strangers wounds, betrayal by friends destroys. For Peet, the
deepest wounds came not only from the flamboyant fraudster Zunaid Moti,
but from his neighbor and friend Herman Marx
—
the man whose children
once played with his own.
⸻
Zunaid Moti
—
The Flamboyant Fraudster
Zunaid Moti thrived on audacity. His style was to overwhelm
—
to move fast,
talk louder than anyone else, and make others feel small in his presence. In
2010, he plunged into the JPC deals with reckless energy, buying properties
under interdicts, creating front companies, and forging documents.
The Shell Game
Moti rarely bought properties in his own name. Instead, he operated through
shells:
• Zambrotti Investments
• Investafin
• Zamien Investments
Behind these names stood Moti, pulling strings, inserting proxies like Irshad
Sulliman, Essa Badat and Martha Bradley as directors. The paper trail was
designed to obscure, confuse, and distance. The controversial attorney
Connie Myburgh helped to shuffle the shells. Connie Myburgh was later
involved in the ShareMax Ponzi Scheme.
Ignoring the Law
Interdicts from the JPC meant nothing to Moti. Court orders barring him from
buying municipal land were treated as inconveniences. He simply pressed
ahead, acquiring 28 more properties even while legally prohibited. Connie
Myburgh confirmed the interdicts on his letterhead.
Peet later warned the Hawks that this was the real crime:
“The corruption should be put at the door of Maringa and his council
buddies. Both complainants did their own negotiations at Council. I was the
only person blowing the whistle when they refused to stop after the possible
fraud came to our attention.”
The response from Hawks head Sibiya was telling:
“Stop talking bad about him or any person involved for peace’s sake.”
Instead of prosecuting Moti, law enforcement protected him.
The VAT Scam
Perhaps Moti’s boldest tactic was the VAT scam. He would inflate purchase
prices, then claim tax refunds on values far higher than what he actually paid.
He bragged about it openly.
Peet recalled:
“He told me, straight-faced: pay R12 million, claim back on R100 million. That
was the scheme. He laughed as if the taxman were a fool.”
This wasn’t business acumen. It was theft on a national scale.
The Forged Letterheads
Then came the forgeries.
Contracts appeared with Peet Viljoen Incorporated’s letterhead. The
problem? Peet hadn’t drafted them. They were forgeries, manufactured to
make it look as though he had authorized transactions he hadn’t even
touched.
At the 2013 Regulation 8(bis) Inquiry, Peet protested:
“If I had intent to steal, I would never have paid Maringa. The complainants
did their own negotiations at Council. I was the only person blowing the
whistle when the possible fraud came to our attention.”
Yet these forged documents became key evidence against him.
The Krejčíř Connection
Adding to the danger was Moti’s admission that he borrowed money from
Radovan Krejčíř, the notorious crime boss later convicted of kidnapping, drug
trafficking, and attempted murder.
This wasn’t property development. It was money laundering dressed as real
estate.
⸻
Herman Marx
—
The Neighbor Turned Betrayer
If Moti was the flamboyant fraudster, Marx was the quiet betrayer coward.
In Silver Lakes Golf Estate, Peet and Marx were friends. Their children played
together. They shared braais, weekends, conversations about business and
family. Marx was the picture of a trusted client.
But beneath the surface, Marx was double-dealing.
The Bryanston Deal:
Through his company Koedoesdraai Investments, Marx purchased Erf 58
Bryanston. The sale was tainted from the start. When questions arose, Marx
secretly registered a long-term lease, making it impossible to unwind the
transaction.
The Centuria Deals:
Marx pulled the Joncks into the Centuria transactions, structuring deals that
hid interdicts and shifted risks onto others. He demanded millions in secret
commissions.
When asked later, he denied it. But documents told another story.
The Gallo Manor and Sandown Properties
The most damning evidence came at the 2013 Regulation 8(bis) Inquiry.
Under Oath, Marx admitted:
Transcript: Regulation 8(bis) Inquiry
–
6 November 2013
Chairman: “Mr Marx, you are here to answer questions about your role in the
Koedoesdraai and Centuria transactions. Did you, or did you not, pay for the
property known as Erf 794 Gallo Manor?”
Marx: “No.”
Chairman: “And did you pay transfer duty on Portion 1, Erf 77 Sandown?”
Marx: “No, I received it for free.”
Committee Member: “So you confirm
—
you received municipal property,
transferred through Peet Viljoen Incorporated, without paying consideration
or duty?”
Marx: “Yes.”
Chairman: “There is something very, very rotten in the state of Denmark. The
state of Denmark is extremely rotten as far as the facts that were presented
to us are concerned.”
⸻
Despite these admissions, the Inquiry did not press charges against Marx.
Instead, they noted the irregularities but left Peet under the cloud of
suspicion.
⸻
From Peet’s 2024 Founding Affidavit
“I was the only one who blew the whistle when it became clear fraud was
taking place. Marx and the Joncks had the interdicts in their hands on 10
March 2010 and proceeded regardless. Yet instead of charging them, I was
made the accused.”
⸻
From the 2024 Heads of Argument
“The dockets Boschkop CAS 41/11/2013, CAS 49/06/2013, CAS 42/2013, and
CAS 197/08/2013 were deliberately withheld for a decade. These dockets
contained statements by key individuals, including Helen Botes, which
directly supported Viljoen’s defense.”
⸻
Transcript: Regulation 8(bis) Inquiry
–
Exchange on Commission
Committee Member: “Mr Marx, you demanded a commission of R2 million on
the Centuria deal, correct?”
Marx: “Yes, but that was part of the arrangement with the Joncks.”
Committee Member: “And when questioned under oath, you gave
contradictory dates about when you first became aware of the interdicts. On
one occasion you said 12 March, on another 15 March. Which is correct?”
Marx: “I cannot recall exactly.”
Committee Member: “Your contradictions weaken your credibility.”
Chairman: “Mr Viljoen, you continue to insist you were not involved in these
negotiations?”
Peet: “Yes. I was only the correspondent attorney. If I had been complicit, I
would never have paid proceeds over to Maringa. My role was administrative.
I exposed the fraud. I did not participate in it.”
⸻
The transcript showed it in black and white: Marx admitting to receiving
properties without paying, the panel calling the facts “rotten,” Peet stating
clearly he had only been the correspondent attorney.
Yet despite openly admitting he had acquired properties without paying, Marx
was never charged. Instead, he was treated as a complainant against Peet.
⸻
The Legal Record
—
How They Shifted Blame
The 2024 Heads of Argument confirmed what Peet had always said: critical
dockets and forensic reports were hidden for over a decade.
“In November 2023, the State dumped 850–1,000 pages of new material,
including forensic handwriting and accounting reports from 2010–2011…
Additional dockets where Viljoen was the complainant were withheld for 10
years.”
—
Heads of Argument, Jan 2024
Those dockets included evidence from Helen Botes and other officials,
proving that Peet was the whistleblower, not the criminal. But for years, they
were buried.
Instead, the false narrative took root: Moti and Marx as victims, Peet as the
villain.
⸻
Chapter Six: Losing Everything
By 2012, the cracks in Peet’s professional life had widened into gaping
fractures. The interdicts, the betrayals, the Hawks circling
—
all of it was
consuming him. But what no affidavit could fully capture was the way this
battle bled into his personal life, hollowing out the man behind the lawyer.
⸻
Separation, 2012
In 2012, Peet and his wife separated. It wasn’t sudden. The years of legal
pressure had become years of marital strain. Their home in Silver Lakes Golf
Estate
—
once a symbol of triumph,
—
had become a place of silence and
tension.
⸻
Divorce, 25 September 2013
The final break came on 25 September 2013.
The divorce was ugly. Years of resentment, fueled by Peet’s public vilification,
spilled into court. The newspapers called him disgraced. The Law Society
branded him unfit. And now, at home, his wife sealed the separation with a
judgment.
“By the time the divorce was done, I had nothing left. No firm. No family. No
reputation. All I had was the fight to prove I had been framed.”
—
Peet
It wasn’t just a legal process. It was a symbolic stripping away of everything
he had built.
⸻
Losing the Family
The cost was more than marriage. The children who once played in Silver
Lakes now belonged to a fractured household. The family unit, the quiet
anchor in the chaos, was gone.
This wasn’t betrayal by strangers. It wasn’t even betrayal by colleagues. It
was betrayal in the most intimate sense: a partner choosing to stand against
him, not with him.
⸻
Financial Collapse
At the same time, the financial toll became unbearable. Years of defending
himself drained everything.
The 2024 re-admission affidavit captured it in stark terms:
“The charges I laid against the true culprits were simply never investigated,
yet I was paraded as the villain.”
While the State ignored fraudsters, it consumed Peet’s resources. His firm
was forced into liquidation and Peet into sequestration. Legal fees mounted.
The millions that once passed through his account vanished, not into his
pockets, but into the endless machinery of defense.
⸻
Social Collapse
With financial ruin and divorce came social exile. Neighbors who once shared
braais with him now turned their faces away. Former colleagues whispered.
Former friends kept their distance, fearing association with a man painted as
corrupt.
Even those who knew the truth
—
that Marx had admitted receiving
properties for free, that Moti had forged letterheads
—
remained silent. Self-
preservation was stronger than loyalty.
Peet was left isolated.
⸻
Reflection
The years 2012–2013 marked the lowest point.
“I was branded a criminal, stripped of my career, and abandoned by my
family. I had nothing. Only the fight remained.”
—
Peet
He had lost everything: the home, the family, the fortune, the profession, the
respect.
But he had not lost his will.
⸻
The Turn to Survival
By the end of 2013, Peet was a man stripped to his core. And yet, in that
stripping, something hardened. He realized that if he had nothing left to lose,
then he had nothing left to fear.
The fight became not just about clearing his name, but about survival.
And in that survival, he would discover that the very law enforcement officers
sworn to protect justice were not neutral. They were predators.
The Hawks were about to make their move.
⸻
The Collapse Summarized
By late 2013, the record was undeniable:
• Affidavits: Peet recorded that charges he laid were ignored, while
charges against him were pursued.
• Inquiry transcripts: Marx admitted to benefiting from fraudulent
property transfers, without consequence.
• Heads of Argument: Prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence for
over a decade.
• Media: Reported allegations as convictions, fueling his social exile.
• Family: Separated in 2012, divorced 25 September 2013, his wife
siding with her family.
• Finances: Firm in sequestration, cars repossessed, home gone.
Peet had truly lost everything.
⸻
Chapter Seven: The Hawks Turn Predator (Extended)
⸻
General Shadrack Sibiya
—
Silence at the Top
The WhatsApp chats between Peet and Sibiya form one of the most damning
records of law enforcement failure in post-apartheid South Africa.
Peet wasn’t guessing. He wasn’t speculating. He put the truth directly to the
Hawks’ provincial head: I am framed. The developers are guilty. I blew the
whistle.
WhatsApp Excerpts
Peet (30 Jan 2013): “Please spend time with the docs I gave you. It should
leave no doubt that I was framed. The corruption should be put at the door of
Maringa and his council buddies. Both complainants did their own
negotiations at Council. I was the only person blowing the whistle when the
possible fraud came to our attention.”
Sibiya (2 Feb 2013): “Moti is agreeing… He just doesn’t have time for all
these. He believes that whether you go to jail or not, he lost money and he
won’t get it. So let’s focus on winning them. Stop talking bad about him or
any person involved for peace’s sake. Do nothing now.”
⸻
Peet (Feb 2013): “General, the forged letterheads were not mine. The files
show it. My staff confirm it. Why am I the accused?”
Sibiya: “We are looking into it. Don’t talk bad about Botes, Moti, or anyone
else. It is making things worse.”
⸻
Peet (Mar 2013): “Marx admitted under oath he got properties for free. Why
no case against him?”
Sibiya: “Leave Marx out of this. Do nothing. Stop talking.”
⸻
Peet (Apr 2013): “I am the whistleblower. You have the proof. Yet you ask me
to keep quiet. Why?”
Sibiya: “Because we want peace. Fighting them will not help you.”
⸻
Analysis
Sibiya’s messages reveal a pattern:
• Shift blame away from fraudsters.
• Demand silence from the whistleblower.
• Reduce corruption to a matter of “peace” and “not making it worse.”
The man who should have led an investigation was leading a cover-up.
⸻
Captain Jan Judeel
—
The Bribe Attempt
If Sibiya’s corruption was about silence, Judeel’s was about money.
According to Peet’s sworn affidavit:
“I was approached with an offer
—
pay half a million rand, and the charges
would go away. I refused. I would not buy my freedom.”
—
Affidavit 2024
The R500,000 demand came through an intermediary linked to the criminal
underworld. It was not a rogue whisper. It was an organized extortion attempt
by the investigating officer himself.
When Peet refused, Judeel’s hostility hardened. Evidence that should have
been exculpatory disappeared. Witnesses who could have cleared Peet were
never called. And Judeel doubled down on the narrative that Peet was the
mastermind.
This was not policing. It was racketeering with a badge.
⸻
Colonel Ursula Herfurth
—
The Fabricator
If Judeel tried to buy silence, Herfurth manufactured it.
Her weapon wasn’t money. It was fear.
According to Peet’s affidavit:
“Herfurth coerced my employees into signing statements I knew to be false.
They were threatened and intimidated until they gave investigators the words
they wanted.”
This tactic was devastating. Staff who had worked loyally in Peet’s practice
were pressured into producing statements that implicated him. Those
statements became part of the State’s case
—
statements born not of truth,
but of coercion.
The State later admitted in the 2024 Heads of Argument that many of these
witness statements were irregular and contradicted by withheld dockets. But
for a decade, they were treated as gospel.
⸻
Brigadier Lesley Mackson
—
The Blocker
If Judeel bribed and Herfurth fabricated, Mackson blocked.
Brigadier Lesley Mackson’s role was to ensure the net only closed around
Peet. Whenever honest officers tried to act against Marx, Moti, or Maringa,
their efforts were stopped. Arrests fizzled. Dockets disappeared.
Peet later described it:
“Brigadier Mackson acted not as an investigator, but as a shield. He blocked
every attempt to charge the true culprits.”
The Hawks weren’t neutral. They were guardians
—
not of justice, but of
corruption.
⸻
The Withheld Dockets
—
Proof of the Cover-Up
The 2024 the original Magistrate (van Wyk) had committed suicide, the
prosecutor, Dries Van Rensburg had been completely removed from the case
due to gross irregularities. The dockets that were kept hidden , were now
discovered but not investigated. Heads of Argument confirmed what Peet had
said since 2010: the Hawks and NPA deliberately buried evidence.
“In November 2023, the State dumped 850–1,000 pages of new material,
including forensic handwriting and accounting reports from 2010–2011…
Additional dockets where Viljoen was the complainant were withheld for 10
years. These dockets contained statements by Helen Botes and others.”
Those dockets contained:
• Evidence that Marx and the Joncks had interdicts before they took
properties.
• Statements confirming Peet’s role was administrative, not criminal.
• Proof that forged letterheads did not come from Peet’s firm.
For ten years, the Hawks and the NPA called this evidence “irrelevant.”
⸻
Reflection
Together, the record shows:
• Sibiya: demanded silence from the whistleblower.
• Judeel: demanded a bribe.
• Herfurth: fabricated evidence through intimidation.
• Mackson: blocked action against the guilty.
“I thought the Hawks were there to protect me. Instead, they hunted me.”
—
Peet
The watchdog had become the predator.
⸻
Chapter 7B: The Hofmeyr Affidavit
⸻
Introduction
—
A Last Appeal
By June 2013, Peet Viljoen had already been stripped of his practice, his
finances, and his family. The Hawks were not investigating corruption; they
were manufacturing a case against him.
In desperation, Peet wrote to Advocate Willie Hofmeyr, the man who had
once led the Scorpions
—
South Africa’s most feared anti-corruption unit
—
and who, at that time, was meant to ensure the Hawks lived up to the same
standard.
The document Peet sent was not polite or cautious. It was explosive. It
accused the head of the Hawks in Gauteng of corruption. It accused senior
officers of bribery, intimidation, and obstruction. It named case numbers. It
named names.
It was, in every sense, a whistleblower’s affidavit against the very system
meant to protect him.
⸻
On General Shadrack Sibiya
Peet opened with the most shocking allegation:
“I opened a case of corruption and obstruction of justice against General
Shadrack Sibiya, the head of the Hawks in Gauteng. The case number is
Boschkop 49/6/2013.”
He described how Sibiya blurred the line between personal business and
official duty:
“General Sibiya invited me to his nightclub, Hlombo Jazz Club, and asked for
investment. Later, he begged me to deny I had seen it. When I refused, he
threatened to ‘deal with me personally’.”
This was not a passing incident. It was emblematic of how compromised law
enforcement had become. The very man at the top was mixing with
developers, running nightclubs, seeking investments, and then using his
badge to intimidate those who resisted.
⸻
WhatsApp Reinforced by Affidavit
The affidavit dovetails with the WhatsApp chats Peet had with Sibiya,
recorded earlier that year:
Peet: “Please spend time with the docs I gave you. It should leave no doubt
that I was framed.”
Sibiya: “Moti is agreeing… Stop talking bad about him or any person involved
for peace’s sake. Do nothing now.”
The affidavit adds the darker layer
—
Sibiya wasn’t only telling Peet to shut
up, he was running side hustles and threatening him directly.
⸻
On Captain Jan Judeel
Peet’s affidavit then described one of the most brazen acts of corruption in
the case:
“Captain Jan Judeel, through At Shepperd, offered to sell me my own case
docket for R500,000. I filed charges, but Judeel himself handled the case. He
investigated himself.”
This was beyond conflict of interest. It was extortion. The very officer tasked
with investigating Peet’s case was trying to profit from it.
And when Peet refused, Judeel remained in charge of the file, ensuring the
investigation targeted the whistleblower, not the fraudsters.
⸻
On Colonel Ursula Herfurth
The affidavit also named Colonel Ursula Herfurth:
“Colonel Herfurth coerced my employees into signing false affidavits,
statements I knew to be untrue. These were used to build the case against
me.”
This wasn’t sloppy policing. It was fabrication. Staff loyal to Peet were
threatened until they signed what investigators wanted. Those falsified
statements were then used as “evidence” in the State’s 399 charges.
⸻
On Brigadier Lesley Mackson
Finally, Peet named Brigadier Lesley Mackson:
“Brigadier Mackson ensured that whenever genuine arrests were about to be
made against the true culprits, they were stopped. He acted as a shield for
corruption, not an investigator of it.”
Every attempt to act against Moti, Marx, or Maringa fizzled because someone
inside the Hawks made sure it never advanced. That someone, Peet told
Hofmeyr, was Mackson.
⸻
The Protection Network
The affidavit widened beyond police officers. Peet identified Attorney Ian
Smallsmith and Businessman Reaan Boysen as intermediaries:
“The corruption was systemic. Attorney Ian Smallsmith and businessman
Reaan Boysen were part of the same network. Whenever I laid charges, the
cases were quietly buried or investigators were reshuffled. I was left
exposed.”
This wasn’t one rogue officer. It was a web
—
legal, business, and policing
—
protecting fraudsters and crushing whistleblowers.
⸻
The Buried Cases
The affidavit also catalogued the dockets Peet himself had opened
—
dockets that were buried:
• Boschkop CAS 49/6/2013
—
against Sibiya.
• Other 2013 CAS numbers
—
against Moti, Marx, and their
associates.
Each disappeared. Each was declared “irrelevant.”
In Peet’s words:
“I laid charges of fraud and forgery against Moti and Marx. I laid corruption
charges against Hawks officers. Each docket disappeared. Each investigator
was replaced. Each case buried.”
A decade later, the 2024 Heads of Argument confirmed this.
⸻
The Pattern
The affidavit laid out the cycle Peet had endured:
1. Report corruption.
2. Hawks officers demand silence, bribes, or cooperation.
3. Refuse, and become the accused.
4. Dockets against real criminals vanish.
5. Fraudsters walk free.
Peet summarized it for Hofmeyr:
“I am the whistleblower, yet I am being hunted. The true criminals walk free,
shielded by the very officers tasked with justice.”
⸻
Commentary
—
The Affidavit in Context
The Hofmeyr affidavit is a rare document. It doesn’t speak in generalities. It
names, case numbers, incidents, and threats. It connects the dots:
• Sibiya silencing Peet.
• Judeel demanding R500,000.
• Herfurth coercing staff.
• Mackson blocking arrests.
• Smallsmith and Boysen acting as fixers.
• Dockets vanishing.
Placed beside the WhatsApp chats, the affidavit proves beyond doubt that the
Hawks weren’t failing. They were actively participating in the persecution.
⸻
Reflection
Peet ended his affidavit to Hofmeyr with prophetic words:
“I am the whistleblower, yet I am being hunted. The true criminals walk free,
shielded by the very officers tasked with justice.”
History proved him right.
When the High Court set aside the proceedings in 2024, it validated every
word written to Hofmeyr in 2013.
⸻
Chapter Eight: Barred Without Conviction and Fifteen Years in the Wilderness
⸻
The Weight of 399 Charges
From the moment the charges were laid in 2010, the number itself became a
weapon.
Three hundred and ninety-nine counts of fraud, corruption, forgery, and
uttering.
It didn’t matter that no conviction existed. The sheer scale of the indictment
ensured Peet was branded guilty in the public eye.
Yet behind the number was emptiness: a prosecution unable
—
or unwilling
—
to present a single coherent charge sheet.
⸻
The Law Society’s Overreach
The assault on Peet’s career began not with the Hawks but with the Law
Society of the Northern Provinces.
For years, Peet had done what few lawyers dared: he treated his practice as a
business. He advertised legally. He paid referral commissions legally. He grew
quickly and visibly. By 2010, he was wealthy, successful, and envied.
The Society decided to make him an example.
⸻
The Fidelity Fund Certificate
After a single complaint, instead of holding a routine disciplinary hearing, the
Society moved straight to strike him off.
Peet filed answers and evidence. The Society postponed the matter sine die
—
indefinitely.
Then they struck harder: refusing to issue his Fidelity Fund Certificate for
2009. Without it, Peet could not practice.
He launched an urgent application to compel them. He won
—
with costs.
The Society appealed.
⸻
The Supreme Court of Appeal
In Bloemfontein, a full bench of five judges delivered a landmark ruling:
“The Law Society is a statutory body with regulatory powers, but it does not
possess the authority to determine the fitness of an attorney to remain on
the roll. That determination lies exclusively within the jurisdiction of the High
Court.”
And then came the stinging rebuke:
“The respondent [Law Society] pursued the matter with an insistence
bordering on vindictiveness, despite lacking jurisdiction. In the
circumstances, it is just and equitable that costs follow the result. The
Society is hereby ordered to pay the costs of this application, including the
costs of two counsel.”
The ruling set precedent: the Law Society could not take the law into its own
hands.
⸻
The 2010 Disbarment Attempt
Humiliated but not finished, the Society returned in 2010.
This time, they bundled every old strike attempt into one new disbarment
application. Unlike disciplinary hearings, this was the nuclear option.
Peet was disbarred not because of proven misconduct, but because of the
“seriousness” of allegations
—
allegations never tested in trial.
He had no chance to defend himself.
“I was disbarred not because I was guilty, but because of how serious the
accusations sounded. The trial that should have followed would have showed
I was not guilty of any charges. That disbarment has now been set aside in
2024.”
—
Peet
⸻
Fifteen Years in the Wilderness
The disbarment marked the beginning of exile.
For fifteen years, Peet lived branded as a criminal:
• In the press.
• In society.
• In his own profession.
Each year followed the same pattern: court dates postponed, dockets
incomplete, disclosure delayed.
⸻
Endless Postponements
From the 2024 Heads of Argument:
“Despite the matter being enrolled since 2010, the State has yet to produce a
final charge sheet. Attempts in 2018 to amend failed. Even by 2023, fourteen
years later, the prosecution was not ready.”
For over a decade, justice was delayed into denial.
⸻
Hidden Evidence
The same Heads revealed what Peet had said since 2010:
“In November 2023, the State dumped 850–1,000 pages of new material,
including forensic handwriting and accounting reports from 2010–2011.
These had been in their possession all along.”
And worse:
“Additional dockets where Viljoen was the complainant were withheld for 10
years… Boschkop CAS 41/11/2013, CAS 49/06/2013, CAS 42/2013, CAS
197/08/2013. These contained statements by Helen Botes and others, directly
exculpatory.”
The evidence that cleared Peet was hidden for a decade, declared
“irrelevant.”
⸻
The Wilderness Defined
The wilderness was not silence. It was weaponised delay.
“I was never convicted, but for fifteen years I lived as if I was. My career
ended, my family gone, my reputation destroyed. Every postponement was
another year stolen.”
—
Peet
⸻
Precedent and Vindication
In the end, the Society achieved the opposite of what it intended.
• The SCA ruling became precedent, restraining its powers.
• The 2024 High Court ruling set aside the case against Peet, erasing
fifteen years of stigma.
The Law Society had tried to make Peet a cautionary tale. Instead, he
became the example of how regulators can be restrained, and justice can rise
after wilderness
⸻
Chapter Nine: Vindication at Last
⸻
The Day of Judgment
On 26 April 2024, the Gauteng Division of the High Court convened in
Pretoria.
For fifteen years, the name Peet Viljoen had been chained to 399 charges. For
fifteen years, he had lived in the wilderness of accusation, disbarment,
sequestration, and disgrace.
That morning, the weight of those years entered the courtroom with him.
⸻
The Judges Speak
When Judge Strijdom read the judgment, his words were measured but
devastating to the prosecution.
“I must agree with the submissions made by the Regional Magistrate, Mr Du
Preez, that there have been serious irregularities in the plea proceedings.”
And then:
“To my mind, this is one of those exceptional cases where it can only be in
the interest of justice to exercise the court’s inherent power to accede to the
Magistrate’s request.”
The order followed:
“The proceedings to date in the court a quo are hereby set aside.”
Judge AC Basson concurred.
With those lines, fifteen years collapsed.
⸻
The Collapse of 399 Charges
Three hundred and ninety-nine charges
—
gone.
Fifteen years of delay
—
gone.
The State’s carefully spun narrative
—
gone.
Peet, the man branded guilty in the court of public opinion since 2010, was
declared innocent in the only court that mattered.
⸻
Tying Back Every Betrayal
The judgment didn’t only erase charges. It erased the falsehoods on which
they had been built.
• Zunaid Moti had forged Peet’s letterhead, engineered VAT scams,
and bragged about tax fraud. Yet he walked untouched. The court’s collapse
of the case vindicated Peet’s insistence: he was framed by Moti’s
fabrications.
• Herman Marx, the neighbor who betrayed him, admitted under oath
to receiving properties for free. The Fidelity Fund panel called the facts “very,
very rotten.” Yet Marx was never charged. The court’s ruling validated Peet’s
long protest: Marx was the guilty one, not him.
• General Shadrack Sibiya, head of the Hawks, told Peet via
WhatsApp:
“Stop talking bad about him or any person involved for peace’s sake. Do
nothing now.”
The judgment showed why silence was demanded: because the Hawks had
no case, only a frame-up.
• Captain Jan Judeel had demanded a R500,000 bribe to make the
case disappear. Peet refused. The case crumbled anyway, proving Judeel’s
extortion attempt had been as hollow as the charges themselves.
• Colonel Ursula Herfurth coerced Peet’s staff into signing false
statements. Those statements formed part of the State’s “case.” The
judgment exposed that case as procedurally rotten.
• Brigadier Lesley Mackson blocked investigations into the true
culprits, ensuring only Peet was targeted. With the judgment, his obstruction
was laid bare as part of a futile, collapsed persecution.
• The Law Society had struck Peet from the roll before any conviction.
The Supreme Court of Appeal had already rebuked them, awarding a rare
cost order. The High Court’s 2024 ruling echoed that truth: Peet had never
been unfit
—
he had been unjustly barred.
• The Media
—
News24, Rapport, The Citizen
—
carried stories
branding him disgraced, unfit, corrupt. Yet when the High Court exonerated
him, they were silent. Their silence was its own betrayal.
⸻
The Symbolism
Fifteen years of wilderness ended in a few sentences.
What the Hawks, the Law Society, the developers, and the media had
conspired to brand as corruption was revealed as persecution.
The ruling was more than legal. It was symbolic: justice, delayed for a decade
and a half, still alive.
⸻
The Aftermath
There were no victory parades. No front-page headlines announcing Peet’s
innocence.
But in the judgment books of South Africa, the truth is recorded forever:
• The case against him was unjust.
• The proceedings fatally irregular.
• The charges, set aside.
⸻
Closing Reflection
“I was never convicted. For fifteen years I lived as if I was. And in one
sentence, the judges gave me back my name.”
—
Peet
The story that began with betrayal by friends and neighbors, persecution by
the Hawks, vendettas by the Law Society, and smears by the press ended
here.
Not with a whisper. Not with compromise. But with vindication.
The wilderness was over.
Justice, long buried, had finally spoken.
⸻
The fall and rise of Peet Viljoen is not just the story of one lawyer. It is the
story of a country at war with its own conscience.
South Africa in the 2010s and 2020s was a place where:
• Developers could ignore interdicts and enrich themselves.
• Senior police officers could silence whistleblowers instead of
protecting them.
• Regulators could strike attorneys from the roll before conviction.
• The media could amplify accusations but bury acquittals.
Peet’s case was not an exception. It was a symptom.
⸻
The Cost of Whistleblowing
Peet’s only crime was refusing to stay silent. He blew the whistle on JPC
fraud, Sharemax, and VAT scams. For that, he lost:
• His career.
• His fortune.
• His family.
• Fifteen years of his life.
But he did not lose the fight.
⸻
The Record of Truth
Inquiry panels admitted “something very, very rotten.”
The Supreme Court of Appeal ruled the Law Society had acted unlawfully.
The High Court in 2024 set aside fifteen years of proceedings.
The record now tells the truth, even if the headlines never did.
⸻
Beyond One Man
The story matters because it shows what happens when corruption captures
not only business and politics, but the very systems meant to uphold law and
justice.
When the watchdog becomes the predator, the innocent are hunted.
When regulators act on vendetta, the profession loses trust.
When media smears replace evidence, society loses truth.
And when a man like Peet refuses to bend, the system tries to break him.
⸻
The Final Word
On 26 April 2024, the High Court ended fifteen years of persecution with a
single order:
“The proceedings to date in the court a quo are hereby set aside.”
Those words did more than free Peet. They exposed the rot of a system that
had punished a whistleblower while protecting the guilty.
⸻
The lesson is simple, but hard-earned:
Truth can be buried. Justice can be delayed. But both, eventually, can rise
again.
And in that rise, the name Peet Viljoen stands not for disgrace, but for
