COUNT 11 - FRAUD

Dominique William Thomas Rensleigh (‘Rensleigh’), a professional photographer, businessman and entrepreneur testified, inter alia, as follows:

[a] He became friends with the accused as a result of a business venture. The accused was a motivational speaker and Rensleigh asked him to judge at one of the events, which was called Model Cup. The accused was impressed at the ideology of Model Cup, inter alia, that it was used as a medium to motivate youngsters and that modeling was now conducted as a sport. After judging in a few events, the accused exhibited his interest to join Model Cup.

NOTES: ACCUSED

• Rensleigh and his wife decided that they did not want to get him involved in Model

Cup and started Model Champs, which they ran with the accused.

[b] The accused moved from Alberton to Bryanston and insisted on using Rensleigh’s office furniture, which was valued between thirty to forty thousand rands. (1) In addition, he begged Rensleigh to use a Fuji camera that belonged to his father, in order to do castings. (2) The accused convinced Rensleigh to enter into an equal partnership. As the events progressed, Rensleigh put in most of his resources from Model Cup into Model Champs. He paid the crew and team, used his sound and lighting,

1. Transcript Page 587 Para 4 - What was the value of these items? --- Well I priced the boardroom table itself was anything between R30 000.00 and R40 000.00 1 although that is not what I paid for it, but I had a buyer for

1 The witness is giving an estimated value based on a potential buyer, which there is nothing to back this up. One can also not assume a value in what it can sell for. You can only use the asset value or cost of the item and what it is worth that was not established. it, but he was adamant that no please can he use it for the Bryanston Office because really the Cherry Wood looked nice, and it was very appealing and you look professional when you have got the whole setup.

2. Transcript Page 588 Para 2 - He also begged me for one of my cameras because he wanted to hold his own castings. That was the camera that my father gave me a Fugi Camera that I used to go on holiday to take pictures because I do not like to take my pic bags on holiday, and did not get paid for the photographs that he took at the Model Champ events. In addition, both himself and his wife invested their expertise and paid for the marketing and printing costs for Model Champs. (3) 2

[c] He continually confronted the accused about the proceeds that were received from the various events and discovered that there was no banking account for the entity. All the monies received were going into the personal account of the accused. The accused always had excuses each time when he was questioned about the monies. His family was living on the breadline, whilst the accused enjoyed a lavish life.

[d] He had not received any proceeds from the events, save for the photographs that he took at the events. The relationship between them deteriorated which eventually led them to part ways. The accused then began taunting them via e-mail and swearing at them. He told Rensleigh that he was selling his furniture and the Fuji camera. 3

2 His wife testified and said that the camera was not his fathers. He never got it from his dad, which contradicts the witness’s evidence. 3 This eliminates the criminality of the case, and the accused warns the witness that he must go and collect his stuff. If not, he will sell it. The accused only intention was to get the witness to collect his property; where is that against the law? Plus, if the witness ignore him or tell him he does not want it as he did testify, how did he break the law? PAGE 107

[e] He valued the total resources that was put in by him as being between R 150 000,00 – R 200 000,00. He stated that he also suffered reputational damage both to himself and to Model Cup. 4

[f] He denied that he had ever told the accused to take pictures of Daniels. He admitted that he knew Rajah, as he had judged with him on a few occasions. He further corroborated the evidence of Van Wyk regarding the modeling industry standards. He always brought these standards to the attention of incumbents, at his workshops.

[g] The accused was to have paid him for the furniture, which he never did. The camera was on loan and the accused had never returned it to him. He felt really disappointed at the conduct of the accused, which resulted in serious financial implication upon both himself and his wife.

[h] The accused’s banking details were on the competition entrance forms of Model Champs and this was done at the behest of the accused, who informed him that it would be better if his details appeared thereon. Save for the one occasion when he received a small amount in cash from the accused, which was not even 50% of the turnover, he did not receive any other monies, in respect of the turnover from the various events.

[i] He disputed the version of the accused that the operational costs were high, as Rensleigh had provided all the lighting, sound and photography for the event. In addition, there was no cost for the use of the venue. As such, he bore all the costs and could not understand as to what costs the accused had incurred. All the accused was required to do was to market and manage the event; and to recruit new people for the events.

4 This is not a fact; is it the witness guessing, and the Court cannot value and convict someone on a crime for something that cannot be proven. The best that could have happened here was to refer this matter to a civil dispute. PAGE 108 [j] He denied the allegation that he was jealous of the accused. He was adamant that there was a partnership between him and the accused who failed to act in terms of such partnership. There was absolutely no transparency on the side of the accused.

[k] He confirmed that Exhibit “U” was a post from his facebook page, during 2012, which called for people to approach Model Cup with evidence against the accused. 5

That in essence concluded the evidence of the 18th witness, Rensleigh

Nicole Rensleigh (‘Nicole’), the wife of Rensleigh testified, inter alia, as follows:

[a] That they met the accused via a website that she created for business opportunities during early 2008. He was invited to be a judge at one of their modeling events, as he indicated to them that he was a motivational speaker. He was part of a panel of five judges.

[b] She confirmed that they had subsequently become friends with the accused and he requested them for an opportunity to become involved with them in the modeling industry. She corroborated Rensleigh’s evidence regarding the involvement of the accused in SA Model Championships. She was clear that they had offered the accused the opportunity to develop the project and that they would share 50% of the turnover of SA Model Champs. 6

[c] She generally corroborated the evidence of Rensleigh in relation to all matters that he testified about. She was clear that during 2008

5 This is all part of the plot the accused mentioned throughout the trial. 6 The dispute was not about sharing the profits while working together from the witnesses property using his equipment. The accused refused to give them 50% of the earnings having to pay for all the expenses, whiles the witness and his wife took 100% of the money from the photos and videos from the events the accused hosted. The witness did not pay a fee or share in his earnings.

the turnover was shared equally between the parties as they were operating SA Model Champs. However, they had not received any share of the turnover during 2009, when the accused took over Model Champs. The accused did not act and perform in terms of the agreement which they had.

Exhibit “V” was handed in by this witness during cross examination, which detailed the history, income, expenditure and other disbursements of Model Cup and Model Champs.

[d] The last event that they had jointly with the accused was on 28/29 August 2009. The difficulties that they had been experiencing with the accused came to the fore at this event, which included discrepancies and irregularities, which caused them to part ways. The Rensleigh’s accordingly informed the public through their website that they had distanced themselves from SA Model Champs and would be continuing in the industry as Model Cup. The accused retaliated by sending out an email wherein he indicated that the information furnished was a scam and advised his models to ignore such information.

[e] She confirmed that both herself and Rensleigh were involved in the investigation of the accused. They assisted various complainants with the opening of criminal cases against the accused, and also accompanied them to the SAPS. 7

[f] She confirmed that SA Model Champs had it’s own website that the Rensleigh’s were paying for. She created an email address for the accused, as the website had it’s own administrative system. She denied ever accessing his email during 2009. She stated that she removed the content of the website after their argument in August 2008. As such the accused was unable to have access to his emails. She did not terminate the domain.

NOTES: ACCUSED

• Shortly thereafter, the accused set up a new domain and email address which she did not have access to.

[g] She denied ever using the accused’s email address to communicate with people. She denied writing any mails to Sims as per Exhibit C – page 4.

[h] She denied the allegation that it was the accused who terminated their relationship. She was adamant that it was them that broke up with the accused.

That in essence concluded the evidence of the 19th witness, Nicole.

JUDGMENT DEFENSE EVIDENCE

Dominique William Thomas Rensleigh (‘Rensleigh’), a profession

[a] Count 11 (Rensleigh) – He met Rensleigh during 2008 in Sandton, after seeing the aforementioned’s contact details on a website. He was informed by the Rensleigh’s that they were involved in network marketing. He informed them that he was involved in Miss South Africa and he had coached her for Miss Universe and Miss World. They appraised him of their company called Model Cup.

[b] They asked him if he would be keen to judge for them in some of their events. After the first event he was asked if he would like to judge again for them and to become more involved. He indicated his willingness, but indicated to them that he has his own business called Master Minds SA. He agreed to judge again, with the understanding that his duty was to judge and to put the event together. They indicated to him that he would get 50 % of the takings of that day. This arrangement was the commencement of their working relationship. He denied that he ever gave out to them that he would enter into a partnership with them.

[c] He denied ever assisting them with any events during 2010, having due regard to page 11, Exhibit “V” and adding that the sketch does not depict the relationship between him and the Rensleighs. As their friendship and business relationship continued Rensleigh said to him that he could have the office furniture 8, as he did not have any place to keep it. He then collected the furniture from Midrand where the items were purchased by Rensleigh and took them to his residence in Bryanston. He subsequently took the furniture from Bryanston to Rustenburg. He experienced financial difficulties

[d] As their friendship and business relationship continued Rensleigh said to him that he could have the office furniture, as he did not have any place to keep it. He then collected the furniture from Midrand where the items were purchased by Rensleigh and took them to his residence in Bryanston. He subsequently took the furniture from Bryanston to Rustenburg. He experienced financial difficulties which caused him to fall into arrears with his rental. The landlord instructed him to leave the premises and refused to give him the furniture that was in storage, until he paid the outstanding rentals. He did not make such payment and thus was unable to reclaim the furniture. He denied ever stealing from or defrauding the complainant of the amount of R 200 000,00 (two hundred thousand rands)

[e] He parted ways with the Rensleighs at the beginning of 2009, as a result of an argument over the sharing of the proceeds from the events that were being held,

[vv] He did not return Rensleigh’s furniture after their final breakup during August 2009, as the aforementioned did not ask him for the return of the furniture. He stated that they fabricated evidence, referring to the camera,

8 How can the accused defraud the witness if he gave the office furniture to the accused, but more importantly, how is it fraud if the accused wants to return the property to the witness? PAGE 110 and that they did so in order to add value to their lies. He admitted that he did not have any documentary proof from the landlord in Rustenburg confirming that he had exercised a lien over the furniture.

He stated that the diagram in Exhibit “V” was clearly incorrect and that no close corporation was registered. He denied the evidence of Nicole to the effect that she had no access to the emails. He concluded that Nicole could have used his email as she had control of the email.

[46] The complainant Rensleigh on count 11 has given his evidence in a clear, concise and confident manner and without any bias towards the accused. 9 His evidence is corroborated by his wife relating to the allegations contained in the charge of fraud against the accused. 10 I am unable to level any criticism in respect of the evidence of this witness, coupled with all the documentary evidence that has been produced during his testimony and that of his wife. I have looked at the merits and demerits of the evidence of this witness and accordingly accept his version. In addition, I am not convinced that this witness hatched a plan to conspire against the accused, as he would have done so in 2009 when their relationship fell apart and not wait until 2013. I accordingly reject the version of the accused on this count.

PALAVER CONCLUSION

This was a highly confusing matter to assess. I will start with the witness “Dominique”. He was

9 The Court is incorrect; points 5 and 7 show that the witness and his wife were utterly out to go after the accused to get him removed from the modelling industry. This contradicts the judgment of the Court. 10 This is also inaccurate. The wife testified that they were not partners. There was no partnership, and that the accused broke away and started his own thing. She also testified that they wanted to control everything, including the accounts of the accused, of which they had no claim or right to by law.

extremely arrangement, and his conduct was aggressive and disrespectful. He answered questions that were not asked; he could not stop boasting and showing off. He was, in our opinion, there to be the hero.

His testimony was that he was not a partner, yet the charge is that the accused lured him into a partnership. So, if the witness testified that he was not a partner, then there was no partnership. It was evident that they did work together but under no duress.

It is more clear that this was a business dealing between two men who did not get their way, with the one being greedy and the other trying to survive and being successful without the help of the witness. So, naturally, that did not make him happy.

It was clear that this self-proclaimed hero needed media attention and used models and the media to take revenge on the accused. Throughout the different cases, I have noticed that the witness had his hand in many of the charges and was the main instigator with Dion Van Wyk to get Carte Blanche to attack the accused.

On the other hand, the Court was cough in the web of lies and did not assess the evidence correctly, the witness made a claim of R200 000 in damages, yet there was no proof of the value the State prosecuted the accused on.

There was no case here, and the findings are shocking.

#TerribleWitness #MediaAtttention #CivialMatter