Home | News | BUSINESSMAN: I MAY LOSE HOME THROUGH MORTGAGE FRAUD

BUSINESSMAN: I MAY LOSE HOME THROUGH MORTGAGE FRAUD

04/07/2020 23:59:00 BY MFANUKHONA NKAMBULE

Font size:

mfanukhona@times.co.sz

MBABANE – A 66-year-old businessman alleges that his spacious house valued at E3 million was fraudulently used as collateral for an EswatiniBank loan.
Mduduzi Cyprian Maziya, who also owns businesses in Mozambique, disputed the authenticity of the document, which is in the custody of the Deeds Office.

Maziya strongly suspects that it might have been forged by a certain deceased attorney whose name we cannot publish because he cannot defend himself.
Acting on a court order, he forced the Deeds Office to release the document so that he could engage the services of the forensic examiner in South Africa.

document was forged

Backing up his claims that the document was forged is a forensic report, which reads in part: “The following original document was received for examination: Surety Mortgage Bond No. 14/1994: Mduduzi Cyprian Maziya i.f.o. Swaziland Development and Savings Bank.”
Annie-Marie Salamon, the Forensic Examiner, who attached her certificates for practice, stated in the report that the following irregularities were identified on the original document –

“The cover page and page one (01) contents indicate the bond was granted to Mduduzi Cyprian Maziya on April 23, 1993;
“On page two (02) line three (03) correction fluid was spread over the words Mduduzi Cyprian Maziya;
“On page two (02) line three (03) the following words were typed on top of the dried correction fluid: Afri-Craft (Proprietary) Limited.”
In her summary, Salamon disclosed that it was her professional conclusion that illegal alterations, exclusions and additions were applied to the original document.
The forensic expert mentioned that the document lacked various endorsement signatures where alterations were made.

She said the use of correction fluid for concealing information or to change the sense of a legal document is considered ‘forgery’.
The forensic report was issued on August 1, 2019.
The house was bonded for a loan of E1 048 977, which Maziya’s company, Afri-Craft (Pty) Ltd secured in 1993. Afri-Craft (Pty) Ltd was liquidated around 1998.

However, documents in the possession of the Times SUNDAY indicate that the loan had a security in the form of a Central Bank of Eswatini guarantee of E786 732.75.
Central Bank paid the guarantee to EswatiniBank on May 18, 2006. If the guarantee was paid at the time the company was liquidated, the principal debt would have been drastically reduced, and interest being charged on the reduced loan.

principal debt

Based on the financial statement from 1993-1997 for Maziya issued by EswatiniBank on June 16, 2020, the principal debt continued to accrue interest despite the fact that the Central Bank of Eswatini had issued the guarantee.
“It was a given that Central Bank will pay the E786 732.75. But the issue here is not about that, it’s about the fraudulent document,” Maziya said in an interview.

He added: “No bank would ever use such a horrible document.”
Before engaging the services of the forensic expert in South Africa, the businessman took up the matter with Central Bank.
In a letter dated March 4, 2014, Majozi Vincent Sithole, the Governor of the Central Bank of Eswatini, wrote to Maziya.

He said the office of the Ombudsman took seriously all customer complaints against financial institutions. Sithole advised that the matter be reported to the law enforcement agents since the alleged falsifying of the legal document did not fall within the purview of the Central Bank’s complaint resolution scheme.
“...and therefore advise you to report the matter to the Royal Swaziland (Eswatini) Police, Anti-Corruption Commission and the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Swaziland Law Society,” reads the letter signed by the Central Bank governor.

make an offer

To put the matter to rest, EswatiniBank is said to have asked Maziya to make an offer so that the debt could be written off. Under pressure to get back his title deed, which is in the custody of the bank, the businessman reportedly offered to pay E250 000 to bring the matter to a closure.
He told this newspaper that he desperately wanted the title deed to secure a business loan with one of the financial institutions, hence he felt tempted to make the offer to EswatiniBank.

Reacting to his offer, EswatiniBank, in a letter dated June 22, 2020, wrote to Maziya: “As stated in our letter, we believe that the enclosed bank statement and letter of offer, signed by yourself, is consistent with the registration of Surety Mortgage Bond No.14/1994.”
The bank said it was not convinced that the authenticity of this document could be in doubt.
“In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary and of course, binding determination by competent authority, ours is to accept the document for what it is,” reads the letter signed by EswatiniBank’s Senior Legal Advisor Knowledge Manana.
Manana minced no words: “With regard to your settlement offer, we advise that we have since brought the same to the attention of our principals. Our instructions are that the offer is not acceptable. The reason for such being the fact that it is far below the outstanding balance of E972 792.15.”
He pointed out in the end of the bank’s letter, that it would be against the institution’s policy to lend money to a director or a company that has a classified debt with EswatiniBank.
It could not be ascertained if interest could be charged on a liquidated company. A bulk of the money, understood to be the outstanding balance arose from interest charged on the principal debt.
Lindiwe Shongwe, the EswatiniBank’s Executive Manager-Marketing, told the Times SUNDAY that her bank believed the client’s (Maziya) matter was handled in line with the financial institution’s policies and the dictates of the law.
“We cannot comment further as the bank holds in high regard the confidentiality of information of our customers,” said Shongwe.
Another concern, which raises eyebrows, is the inconsistency in the documents.
In the alleged forgery document, Maziya’s house at Fairview is listed as the fifth surety mortgage bond, whereas a document crafted for the attention of the client on March 15, 1993, classifies the security as the ‘third surety mortgage bond’.
In this document, which is also in our possession, there is no description of the property (Third Surety Mortgage Bond Over Fairview Property). The document prepared by EswatiniBank described the first security as being, “1st Mortgage Bond Over Lot No.557 Matsapha Industrial Site e/v E200 000.”

sold by public auction
According to Maziya, the property that was situated in Matsapha, which was sold by public auction during the liquidation, was evaluated to the price of E3 million.
“I don’t know where they got the E200 000,” he alleged. He said he was pleased that EswatiniBank, in its recent letter, owned up to the letter, which he believed was forged.
“It’s difficult for me to believe anything they say because forensic experts made it clear that the document binding my property was forged,” he said.
Asked why he kept the title deed with EswatiniBank if he wasn’t indebted, he responded that he did so for safe keeping.
He said he was not the only person who kept the document in the bank for safe-keeping.
In his understanding, he said his defunct company was not indebted to the bank.
“I cannot recall if they benefitted from the liquidation proceeds. They were supposed to be there to file a claim because the liquidation was advertised in the media, and it was conducted in the open for everyone to see,” he said.
He added: “I’m 66 years; I can’t be made to suffer like this. In my personal capacity, I don’t owe the bank.” Asked what police said to him when he reported the matter, the businessman said they told him they did not have powers to arrest a bank.

power of attorney
“They dilly-dallied until the suspect who tempered with my power of attorney died but I’m worried when the bank says the document is genuine,” he said.
The businessman said he did not report the matter to the Swaziland Law Society as he wanted the police to handle it independently or alongside the ACC.
“I went to report it to the ACC,” he said.
Since inception, the ACC, on the basis of the law that establishes it, is not allowed to disclose information on a particular case under investigation.
Thabiso Masina, the Director of the Deeds Office, said he was aware of the matter, but advised both EswatiniBank and Maziya to sort it out on their own without his office’s involvement.
He said the only thing they did as Deeds Office was to release the document, which is in their lawful custody, to Maziya on the strength of a court order to conduct the forensic examination.
Superintendent Phindile Vilakati, the Chief Police Information and Communications Officer, said the officer purportedly investigating the case was out of office and could not access the records.