Stock Image Pixabay
Kevin Kaschula was employed in the Forex Department of Nedbank in East London from 1994-2015 where his path crossed with an elderly client who had accused him of theft.
According to the judgment, the complainant, Elvin Krull decided in 1994 to invest in gold Krugerrands, buying about 300 odd coins over a period of time.
The judgment noted that he never counted all the coins but felt there were too many to keep in his office strongroom, and decided to rent a safety deposit box in the vault at Nedbank in Oxford Street.
The bank manager suggested that Nedbank could assist him by purchasing more coins on his behalf on an ad hoc basis.
During the trial, the State said Krull rarely checked on his coins and visited the bank only five or six times, the last time being some 20 years ago.
According to his testimony Krull said that on his 80th birthday, in May 2015, he wanted to show his children how many coins he had accumulated over the years and discovered that he had lost his key to his safety deposit box.
He went to the bank with his son and a locksmith who opened the box in front of two bank employees.
Krull said when the deposit box was opened, he realised that it was replaced with a different one, filled with 320 coins.
During the trial, the locksmith testified that he had opened Krull's safety box by drilling a hole and picking the lock.
He then noticed two pre-existing holes which had been plugged with steel bolts, and further noticed other boxes with similar holes.
Krull was under the impression that he had now accumulated at least 700 coins and found only 320.
In the box was also a handwritten note by his late wife dated 17 July 1995 that read "current contents 320 Krugerrands."
It was then that Kevin Kaschula informed the family that there was a second box under his name where they had 80 coins, still in their original packaging.
He said it was under his name pending a handover to Krull.
The Bank manager testified that there ought to have been a record of every time a client accessed their safety deposit box, but could not offer an explanation as to why only the access files of Krull and Kaschula were missing.
Kaschula testified in his own defence and said, on occasion, he handed over purchased coins to Mr Krull in the vault but was not present for all handovers.
He said he was also unaware of the contents of the second box under his name, although he found the keys in his old briefcase.
In the Judgment, the High Court said Kaschula's testimony was not without contradiction, but those contradictions do not place a burden on the accused to prove anything, but that it is the duty of the State to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
The High Court further ruled that the State adduced no direct evidence to prove that Kaschula stole the coins and that their case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence.
The court said an inference on guilt can only be drawn, from facts which have been objectively established, and due allowance must be made from the reasons why an accused might have been deceitful.
In the court's Judgment delivered on Thursday, it said that Krull's evidence was unsatisfactory in various aspects and that none of the eight State witnesses were able to support his version of events with direct evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt.
In her judgment, Justice Thandi Norman said Kaschula's version at least raises reasonable doubt.
"This is exacerbated by the fact that the existence and quantity of Krull's coins were not established and by convicting the appellant on the theft of about 480 coins will bring the total Kruger coins found to be owned by Krull, in excess of 800, which was never his version to begin with" read the judgment.
On the 2nd of August 2019, the then 57-year-old Kaschula was sent to prison in Middelburg to start serving his eight-year sentence.
He was granted parole 10 months later when the country was in lockdown due to Covid 19.
Kaschula's legal team instructed Bay attorney Peter Daubermann to argue the appeal.
His lawyer, Andre Schoombie, told Algoa FM News that the Asset Forfeiture Unit (AFU) will be rescinding the restraint order over Kaschula's assets.
"It has been a long difficult and stressful road for Mr. Kaschula but he has now eventually been vindicated," said Schoombie.
