How ‘laundered’ funds from Namibian bank bought exotic cars in SA

Millions of rand embezzled from embattled Namibian lender SME Bank have found their way to SA, buying exotic cars at premier luxury cars importer Daytona.

The bank is in business rescue, after more than R250m was looted from its coffers. The lender’s liquidators are now pursuing Daytona, seeking to recoup the funds spent on the cars via Asset Movement Financial Services (AMFS).

The cars bought from Daytona include an Aston Martin Vanquish Coupe, with the total value topping R10m and including scores of high-end Mercedes-Benz vehicles.

Daytona started its high-end luxury motor car portfolio in 2005, when it earned the licence to represent Aston Martin in SA. Rolls-Royce cars soon followed, as well as cars from McLaren.

The liquidators of the bank argue that Daytona received the money in a “reckless manner, knowing that the monies were not due to them, and in receiving and by appropriating the monies, the defendants took the risk that the monies were not legally due to them, and, by shutting their eyes to the consequence of appropriating the monies in the circumstances, acted with dolus eventualis [where someone foresees the possibility of harmful consequences from their actions, but still commits them]”.

This is an allegation that Daytona, which has Justin Divaris as founder and CEO, denies.

VBS Mutual Bank

“My client had no reason to believe that AMFS and/or the customers who used its services were involved in any illicit activity.”

The dispute is dragging on in SA’s courts.

Daytona is home to high-end sports and luxury vehicles in Sub-Saharan Africa, with a state-of-the-art 8,000m² showroom and workshop facility in Melrose Arch. The company is home to vehicles from high-performance sports car manufacturer Lotus and Sweden’s Koenigsegg Automotive.

SME Bank, in a case that resembles the demise of VBS Mutual Bank, alleged that R79.8m of the money stolen from the SME Bank was received by and laundered through AMFS.

The liquidators say that “in light of the defences raised by the vehicle recipients, the plaintiffs sought an explanation from [the third defendant] [Divaris], as representative of [the first and second defendants] [Daytona].

“On a number of occasions [the third defendant] was subpoenaed to explain the discrepancies between the version proffered by the defendants initially and the explanation of the vehicle recipients.”

khumalok@businesslive.co.za