Libertas ‘has hallmarks of Ponzi scheme on grand scale’
· Citizen
Libertas GH could rank among South Africa’s 10 biggest Ponzi schemes if allegations against the collapsed cryptocurrency investment company stand up.
About R1.1 billion flowed through its bank accounts. The scale of the alleged scheme places Libertas alongside some of SA’s most notorious financial scandals, including Mirror Trading International, Barry Tannenbaum, Fidentia, Masterbond, Krion, BHI Trust, Africrypt and the Kubus scheme.
Visit syntagm.co.za for more information.
Criminal case against Libertas opened
After several months of investigation, Chad Thomas of IRS Forensic Investigations opened a criminal docket at Sandton police station at the weekend. It implicates Libertas director Ahmad Yasin Hossenbocus in alleged fraud, money laundering and other financial offences.
An analysis of the company’s banking transactions, seen by The Citizen, identified R1.097 billion in funds, of which R719.4 million, or 65.6%, was paid to investors. Another R377.7 million went towards commissions, operational expenses, investments in other businesses and additional payments.
“This is indicative the funds paid over as so-called profit were not generated from cryptocurrency mining but from other investors funds – a clear indication this has all the hallmarks of a Ponzi scheme,” Thomas said in his affidavit.
The Citizen previously reported that two business rescue practitioners had abandoned attempts to save Libertas.
The second practitioner, Thomas Samons, announced last month that business rescue would be terminated and liquidation proceedings pursued. Samons had identified 2 105 clients and more than R906 million received between 2020 and 2026.
His interim report identified investments in Technotherm, a plastic-to-diesel operation, and Afriswiss Trading, which was involved in sugar imports. The subsequent financial analysis identified a larger volume of transactions, taking it past the billion rands mark.
The probe has also identified accounts in Dubai and possible assets in Mauritius, while Serbian investors have reported investments totalling around €500 000 (about R9.2 billion).
Thomas said the international transactions still needed to be examined and the full extent of the company’s financial exposure had yet to emerge.
Libertas deny operating as Ponzi scheme
Libertas has previously denied operating a Ponzi scheme. Paresh Pursooth, of Richen Attorneys, who represented the company at the time, strongly rejected the allegations and challenged Thomas to produce evidence.
“It’s not a Ponzi and whoever alleges it is must validate it by giving factual and credible evidence,” said Pursooth.
The attorney defended the investment structure on the basis that interest was prohibited under Islamic financial principles. However, when asked how Libertas generated its investment returns, Pursooth referred to conventional investment portfolios, without explaining the specific source of the group’s profits.
He also dismissed the accusations as an “unsubstantiated and foolish notion” and argued the business rescue practitioners would produce a workable plan to satisfy creditors.
‘Where is the money?’
The first rescue practitioner, BRP’s Danie van Jaarsveld, quit because he could not see value against participant investments.
“A tremendous amount of money came in,” said Van Jaarsveld. “The question is: where is the money?
“[Hossenbocus] said it was there, but I could not see the value.”
His resignation letter also recorded “material differences” with Hossenbocus and said he had “not been provided with sufficient evidence confirming the availability of funding” needed to support the rescue and investigations.
Samons later quit, also citing undue pressure.
South Africans robbed of billions of rands
“These type of schemes have robbed everyday South Africans of billions of rands and as of now, there are most probably at least a dozen other high value illicit schemes operating,” said Thomas.
Libertas marketed its investments primarily to SA’s Muslim community as Sharia-compliant opportunities, with returns described as profits rather than interest.
Thomas added the use of personal relationships in communities made such operations particularly damaging because investors frequently trusted recommendations from people they knew.
Thomas also alleged Hossenbocus lacked the necessary regulatory registrations to offer investment products or accept deposits from the public. He said Hossenbocus acknowledged during a meeting earlier this year that investor money had been used for other ventures instead.