Businessman and alleged member of the Gold Mafia Andries Greyvenstein says he was not afforded an opportunity to reply to the preservation application brought by the South African Revenue Service (Sars) against him.
This was after Sars announced that the judgment had been delivered on February 12, 2025.
Greyvensteyn was implicated in gold smuggling and money laundering in an Al Jazeera investigation and was named as a key figure in moving gold and illicit funds the four-part documentary aired in 2023.
The revenue service said this judgment was preceded by a provisional preservation order in chambers against Greyvensteyn and his company, The Gold Kid (Pty) Ltd.
Sars said the order authorised repatriation of foreign assets and limited Greyvensteyn’s right to travel outside the country.
It also allowed for the preservation of Greyvensteyn’s and Gold Kid’s assets as well as the compulsory repatriation of his foreign assets.
However, Greyvensteyn’s attorneys, Kruger & Okes INC, said Sars’ motivation for bringing the application “ex parte”, was simply that it was concerned that if their clients (Greyvensteyn and Gold Kid) were to be informed of the application, they would proceed to dissipate their assets.
The lawyers said prior to the application being brought, their offices addressed correspondence to Sars, confirming that their clients had received information that the revenue service was in the process of bringing an application for a preservation order and that they had no intention of dissipating their assets.
“Our clients accordingly not only suspected that an application for a preservation order was being brought, but notified Sars of the information our clients had received, and further did not dissipate any of the assets following such information being brought to their attention,” said the attorneys.
The lawyers said their considered opinion was that Sars accordingly had no reasonable fear or apprehension that Greyvensteyn and Gold Kid would dissipate any of their assets. They said their clients continued to insist that they did not knowingly participate in any value-added tax (VAT) fraud scheme.
The lawyers said Greyvensteyn and Gold Kid previously faced identical allegations from Sars and these were dismissed in the Tax Court in April 2020.
Gold Kid has since 2014 been refining, trading and assaying gold and other precious metals to the wholesale industry and selling gold it refined to offshore entities, mostly in Dubai.
Greyvensteyn and Gold Kid have been the subjects of a Sars tax inquiry.
Gold Kid has been embroiled in a dispute with Sars since 2016, and two years later, the taxman was forced by the South Gauteng High Court to pay the company about R70 million in VAT refunds, plus interest.
Sars then refused to release R78m to Gold Kid, stating that the company was indebted to the revenue collector by R721, 324, 823,54, according to a July 2018 ruling by the South Gauteng High Court.
At the time, Gold Kid had sought to have Sars’ decision to reverse its VAT refunds reviewed and set aside but was unsuccessful, and its appeal of the judgment was dismissed with costs in October 2018.
In 2023, Greyvensteyn dragged Sars, its commissioner Edward Kieswetter and Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana to the North Gauteng High Court to challenge parts of the Tax Administration Act (TAA).
He challenged the constitutionality of sections 180, 184(2), and 186(3) of the act.
Section 180 holds a person personally liable for a taxpayer's tax debt if their negligence or fraud resulted in the failure to pay the tax debt.
Section 184(2) requires SARS to provide an opportunity for representations before holding a person liable for a taxpayer's tax debt, and section 186(3) allows a court to order the repatriation of a taxpayer's foreign assets and limit their ability to travel or conduct business.
However, Greyvensteyn argued that these provisions violated his constitutional rights, including a right access court, rights to freedom of movement and to choose a trade, occupation, or profession freely.
However, the court found that Sars actions under sections 180 and 184(2) constituted administrative action, which is reviewable under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA).
The court also emphasised that Greyvensteyn has the right to a judicial review of Sars' decisions, ensuring access to court, adding that that the limitations imposed by section 186(3) on Greyvensteyn's rights were reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society, given the importance of tax collection for public interest.
Sars said the judgment confirmed that though the revenue service may not carry out its duties in a way that violates constitutional rights, the current provisions do not infringe taxpayers’ constitutional rights.
Kieswetter said: This precedent setting decision reaffirms SARS’ legal authority to discharge its work of collecting all revenue due to the state in an efficient and effective manner. Importantly, was the court’s reiteration that the provisions that allow SARS to determine third-party liability, repatriation of foreign assets and restrictions of travel are lawful and constitutional.
“SARS will continue to provide certainty and clarity to taxpayers while making it easy and simple to transact with the organisation. However, SARS will vehemently oppose any action by the taxpayer intended to undermine its mandate,” he said.
Kruger & Okes INC said Greyvensteyn remains confident that Sars’s allegations will again be dismissed once the matter eventually finds its way to the Tax Court.
The law firm added that Greyvensteyn will also continue to engage with Sars in an attempt to have the matter resolved in all parties’ best interests in the interim.