ABSA call centre manager & Co have a case to answer- Court
Sharon Mathala - Larona Makhaiza | Wednesday January 14, 2026 06:12
The objection was raised by the defence lawyer, Unangoni Tema, who argued that the charge was 'vague and embarrassing' and 'failed to meet the legal threshold' required to sustain a charge of fraud under section 342A of the Penal Code.
The defence contended that the charge did not specify who defrauded whom, failed to identify the particular bank account allegedly defrauded, and lacked sufficient details to enable the accused to plead or properly prepare their defence.
According to the particulars of offence, the accused persons are alleged to have acted together and in concert, on a specified date and place, with the intent to defraud. It is alleged that banking credentials belonging to an ABSA customer were unlawfully disclosed by 32-year-old Tebogo Tshepang by virtue of employment at the bank, after which 35-year-old Leatile Motshabi and another, Othusitse Aone, allegedly still on the run, took control of the complainant’s account and transacted monies amounting to P702,036.07 without the knowledge or consent of the account holder.
Delivering her ruling yesterday following an application to quash the charges, Senior Magistrate Tshepo Thedi shared that the court had carefully considered the charge sheet, the particulars of offence, and the submissions made by counsel on both sides.
The magistrate underscored that the applicable legal test in such matters is well settled, emphasising that a charge will only be struck down if it fails to disclose an offence known in law or is so vague that the accused cannot reasonably be expected to plead thereto or prepare a defence, thereby occasioning prejudice.
“The court must guard against elevating technical objections over substance, particularly at the pre-trial stage,” the court held.
Turning to the substance of the charge, the court examined whether the allegations as pleaded disclose an offence under section 342A of the Penal Code. That provision criminalises the dishonest and unlawful obtaining, disclosure or use of banking or financial information with the intent to defraud, where such conduct results in prejudice to another person.
The magistrate noted that the charge identifies the complainant, the bank involved, the nature of the unlawful conduct, the intent to defraud, and the prejudice allegedly suffered.
“The fact that different accused persons are alleged to have played different roles in the commission of the offence does not render the charge defective,” the court ruled, adding that joint criminal enterprise is recognised and permissible in law.
Addressing the defence argument that the charge was vague because it did not disclose the specific bank account number allegedly defrauded, the court rejected the submission as lacking merit. “Such details are evidential in nature and are matters to be canvassed during trial,” the court stated.
The magistrate further held that the charge sufficiently informs the accused of the case they are required to meet, including whose account is alleged to have been defrauded, at which bank, the amount involved, and the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed. The court noted that no real prejudice arising from the omission of the account number had been demonstrated by the defence.
Whilst dismissing the objection, the court conceded that the charge sheet was “not a model of perfect drafting”.
However, it ruled that it was not so vague or embarrassing as to warrant dismissal and that it adequately apprised the accused of the allegations against them to enable them to plead and prepare their defence.
Case continues February 5, 2026.