Att: ABB South Africa

We refer to the following extract from the ADRCA with ABB South Africa:

 

We also refer to the following extract from Captain Schreiber’s affidavit.

Our Questions

 

Proven Facts:

 

1. Payment Dates and Amounts:

 

• The contract between ABB South Africa and Leago Engineering became effective on May 4, 2015, and specified a 10 percent advance payment within 30 days after certain prerequisites were met.

 

• ABB South Africa, through Goetz-Dietrich Wolff, received Leago Engineering’s invoice on May 22, 2015.

 

• Goetz-Dietrich Wolff signed and approved the invoice on May 27, 2015.

 

• The prepayment from ABB South Africa to Leago Engineering was made on June 26, 2015, not May 28, 2015, as initially asserted in the Schriber’s Affidavit.

 

• The payment of R9,791,703.12 was made within the 30-day payment term specified in the contract with Leago Engineering.

 

• The June 26, 2015, date does not align with the timeline presented in the state’s narrative. According to the Statement of Fact, Sunil Vip, a former executive at ABB, tried to mediate a dispute between Koko and Mokwena in or around May 2015. The dispute arose from Mokwena’s alleged failure to share the advance payment with Koko. Such details strongly indicate that the prepayment and the critical interactions occurred well before June 26, 2015. This discrepancy is misleading and entirely fabricated, highlighting significant flaws in the state’s narrative.

 

• June 26, 2015, is not within the timeframe of “in or around May 2015.” The phrase “in or around May 2015” typically implies a period close to May 2015, such as late April or early June. However, June 26, 2015, is almost a month after May 2015, generally considered outside the “in or around May 2015” timeframe.

 

• The Statement of Fact in Schedule 1 is predicated on fraud by misrepresentation. See the attached audit trail. The attached audit trail speaks for itself. Did you intentionally

misrepresent the facts to the US DOJ and the National Prosecuting Authority to save your reputation?

 

 

 

2. Pieter White’s Case Analyses

 

• Pieter White undertook a meticulous analysis to construct a narrative supporting the state’s claims. He dove into cell phone data connecting Koko to Mokwena and Seswai, seemingly reinforcing the state’s story about a fallout triggered by an advance payment.

 

• The communication patterns between Koko and Mokwena and between Koko and Seswai do not align with the payment timeline. The reduction in communication between Koko and Mokwena in May 2015 and the spike in June 2015 cannot be attributed to the prepayment issue, as the payment was made later.

 

• Given this inconsistency, the validity of the Impulse Scheme is also questionable. The Impulse Scheme is based on the premise that Koko shifted his alliances from Mokwena to Seswai due to the fallout over the advance payment. However, since the payment was not made until June 26, 2015, the changes in communication patterns in May 2015 cannot be linked to the payment issue. This undermines the foundation of the Impulse Scheme, as it relies on the same flawed timeline and reasoning as the Leago Scheme.

 

• This glaring discrepancy raises serious questions about the integrity of the facts of this case. We see a desperate attempt to align with a predestined narrative rather than objectively examining the facts. What is your comment?