evidence relating to the events inside the MAWF or to engage in any detail with the evidence concerning the interactions between Mr Shilongo and Mr Shikage and the MAWF officials implicated in the clearly unlawful activities, the appellants failed to discharge the burden of proof they bear in relation to any such application. For the same reason, the appellants did not make out a case for the forfeiture order to be limited to certain assets as opposed to all forfeited property. Whether the forfeited property constitutes of criminal activities’ ‘proceeds Section 1 of POCA defines of unlawful activities’ in very broad ‘proceeds terms as meaning: property or any service, advantage, benefit or reward that was derived, ‘any received or retained, directly or indirectly in Namibia or elsewhere, at any time before or the commencement of this Act, in connection with or as a result of any unlawful activity carried on by any person, and includes any property representing property so derived and includes property which is mingled with property that is proceeds of unlawful activity.’ From the above definition, it is clear that the proceeds might involve ‘any property or any service, advantage, benefit or reward’, including property ‘any representing property so derived’; the proceeds might have been retained or received or indirectly’; the proceeds might have been retained or received ‘directly connection with or as a result of’ any unlawful activity; the unlawful activity ‘in might have been carried on any person’; the proceeds might have been ‘by retained or received Namibia or elsewhere’, and the proceeds might have been ‘in retained or received any time before or after the commencement of this Act’. ‘at
evidence relating to the events inside the MAWF or to engage in any detail with the evidence concerning the interactions between Mr Shilongo and Mr Shikage and the MAWF officials implicated in the clearly unlawful activities, the appellants failed to discharge the burden of proof they bear in relation to any such application. For the same reason, the appellants did not make out a case for the forfeiture order to be limited to certain assets as opposed to all forfeited property. Whether the forfeited property constitutes ‘proceeds of criminal activities’ Section 1 of POCA defines ‘proceeds of unlawful activities’ in very broad terms as meaning: ‘any property or any service, advantage, benefit or reward that was derived, received or retained, directly or indirectly in Namibia or elsewhere, at any time before or the commencement of this Act, in connection with or as a result of any unlawful activity carried on by any person, and includes any property representing property so derived and includes property which is mingled with property that is proceeds of unlawful activity.’ From the above definition, it is clear that the proceeds might involve ‘any property or any service, advantage, benefit or reward’, including ‘any property representing property so derived’; the proceeds might have been retained or received ‘directly or indirectly’; the proceeds might have been retained or received ‘in connection with or as a result of’ any unlawful activity; the unlawful activity might have been carried on ‘by any person’; the proceeds might have been retained or received ‘in Namibia or elsewhere’, and the proceeds might have been retained or received ‘at any time before or after the commencement of this Act’.
New%20Africa%20Dimensions%20CC%20v%20Prosecutor-General%20(SA%2022-2016)%20[2018]%20NASC%20(8%20March%202018).docx