If you need legal advice regarding extortion and related legal aspects, please contact our offices and we can refer you to a defence lawyer who may be able to advise you on this. “Tax” extortion is a periodic payment, either as a lump sum or as a percentage of a company`s turnover, that an organized criminal group demands in exchange for continued activity. The amounts are usually calculated to be sustainable for the business, so they can pay without having to close their doors. In Mexico, blackmail by avocado producers (now also known as “green gold”) has become a serious problem. In the early 1990s, an organized criminal group hacked into the data systems of the National Ministry of Agriculture and accessed the records of all avocado growers, the size of their farms, and their turnover (Fox News, 2017). This information was then used to track down avocado producers and force them to give the cartel a quota of all products or expose themselves to the risk of kidnapping. The practice of blackmailing avocado growers has become a popular method of diversifying the revenues of the region`s most powerful drug cartels (Ballesteros, 2017). After the success of the strategy, other Mexican criminal groups such as the Michoacán Templars and the Michoacana family began copying the practice (Fox News, 2017). In 2016, the “extortion tax” on the avocado industry was estimated at $2.2 billion (Bonello et al., 2021). The same evidence that may be inadmissible in criminal matters is not necessarily excluded in civil matters. The question of whether, after criminal conduct, a threat of prosecution or the taking of further action would be contrary to morality is ultimately a political consideration.

For example, you cannot threaten to file a criminal complaint against someone for an act that has nothing to do with the harm suffered and for which you are trying to obtain payment, because that would be blackmail. The same applies to embarrassing but non-criminal acts that have no bearing on the claim in question. It is only possible to demand or blackmail something that you would have been entitled to anyway. As a general rule, a contract triggered by the threat of prosecution is not enforceable because of the coercion. To this end, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) ruled in Medscheme Holdings (Pty) Limited & another v Bhamjee 2005 (5) SA 339 (SCA) that “an undertaking obtained by an unlawful or unscrupulous threat of substantial damage is voidable”. This would also be the case if it is blackmail or blackmail. To prosecute a crime of extortion, it is important to take the plunge and file a complaint with a police station. From there, an investigation is launched under a routing slip and the blackmailer is arrested and charged if there is sufficient evidence. While it is possible that the information used to blackmail a person will come to light during the investigation, it is important to put an end to the blackmailers and regain the power they are trying to take away from their victims. Baadjies and Waka were released on the 21st. They were remanded in custody until 28 January to allow for further investigation into the case and their involvement in other similar cases. Two suspects appeared in Port Elizabeth Regional Court this week to face extortion charges.

Let`s look at some examples of what extortion entails: On 30 November 2016, SCA issued a judgment in the case DL Hohne v. Super Stone Mining (Pty) Ltd (Case No. 831/2016), in which an employee (plaintiff) stole diamonds, as confirmed by CCTV footage. The value of the diamonds was about R6 million. South African courts take the crime of extortion very seriously and have classified it as a first-list crime, meaning perpetrators can be punished to the full extent of the law. The punishment for extortion usually depends on the circumstances of the crime, such as: the amount or act extorted and the information used to blackmail the person. In the meantime, further arrests cannot be ruled out in this case. Under South African law, the crime of extortion is classified as a common crime.

This means that it is not written in any legislature, but through historical legal influences on the South African legal system as well as established case law in the courts. The accepted definition of the crime of extortion is “depriving another person of a pecuniary or non-pecuniary benefit by intentionally and unlawfully exerting pressure on that person to submit to deportation,” according to SAPS. This is not the same as blackmail, because blackmail is a more serious threat. Simply put, it means threatening a person with a harmful act unless they comply with the demands made. This can be emotionally distressing and distressing for victims and their families, especially if the information used to blackmail the person could harm their family, professional relationships, or image. Extortion can be explained as a crime in which a person “forces another person to do something against their will (usually to give money or goods or provide a service), under threat of violence or damage to property or person. Extortion involves the victim`s consent to the crime, but this consent is obtained illegally. Although a definition of extortion as a common law crime has evolved through jurisprudence and historical legal influences, extortion is not defined per se in the legislation of the South African legal system (Irish-Qhobosheane, 2022). The SAPS has followed case law and uses the following widely accepted definition of blackmail: “Depriving another person of a pecuniary or non-patrimonial advantage by intentionally and unlawfully exposing that person to pressure to submit to expulsion”.

Peter Gastrow, Senior Advisor to the Global Initiative to Fight Transnational Organized Crime (GI-TOC), explains that extortion is therefore considered a “threat to a person with a harmful act, unless he or she complies with the blackmailer`s demands” (Gastrow, 2021). Extortion relies on violence to ensure respect, creating a climate of terror between communities and victims. People pay extortion fees because they are threatened (Bonello, Reitano, & Shaw, 2021). “This case was reported to the National Cold Case Investigation Team on 15 September. January 2020. The developer would have been forced to pay the money, otherwise the construction of the police station would be stopped. It is important to note that an employer not only has the right to confront an employee with alleged misconduct, but is obliged to do so in order to give an employee the opportunity to respond to it according to the Audi principle. This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more.

Lawful evidence obtained may be used in disciplinary hearings and civil cases. On January 20, 2020 at 3:30 p.m., a puncture operation was performed. The two suspects were arrested at Port Elizabeth International Airport, where they met with the contractor to recover the money. Subsequently, the company brought a civil action against the employee to compensate for the damage suffered. The employer succeeded in making the employee civilly liable a quo in court and the employee appealed to SCA. The call revolved around the admissibility of some evidence: the developer built a satellite police station in Chatty, Bethelsdorp, just outside Port Elizabeth. The contractor was also threatened with not informing other members of the community of the claim. Police have called anyone with a similar problem to contact the SAPS Crime Stop number on 086 00 10111. Notes can be communicated via MySAPSApp. Whistleblowers can remain anonymous and all information will remain strictly confidential. SAnews.gov.za national police spokesman, Vishnu Naidoo, said Luvuyo Chippa Baadjies, 39, and Simphiwe Bans Waka, 45, were arrested by members of the national cold case investigation team for allegedly threatening and demanding R100,000 from a contractor. In Hohne, the FCC found that the theft and proof of the amount of damage to the employer had been established in documents in which the employee had admitted his tort, liability and the amount in question.

The employer did not demand or extort evidence to which it would not otherwise have been entitled, and no “unscrupulous threat of serious harm” was made against the employee – although the employee claimed that the guilty plea was signed under duress, the employee chose not to provide evidence to support his allegations. The evidence is therefore both admissible and enforceable against the employee, since it was obtained without constraint. If a company has evidence of the crime in question, a threat to report the matter to the SAPS is appropriate. However, if the company has no evidence of the crime and there are only rumors and facts that indicate the possibility of theft by an employee, but there is no solid evidence, caution is advised when questioning the employee. The Company will act within the scope of its rights to inform the employee that it refers the matter to the police or private judicial police for investigation. Were the “dirty twelve” threatened by the employers` representatives against good morals? It should also be remembered that an employer cannot threaten to sue a debtor or employee, so the debtor undertakes to pay a sum that a company deems arbitrarily due. If the Company does not know the exact amount stolen, it is legally entitled to threaten legal action, but using the threat of lawsuits to extort an obligation to pay an amount that the Company knows it cannot prove that it cannot prove that it is due is an abuse of its legal rights.