Witness Throws Fraud Case into Disarray at Palm Ridge Court

The high-stakes fraud trial against businessman Rushil Singh took an unexpected turn on Wednesday when a key prosecution witness delivered testimony that appeared to contradict earlier claims, casting doubt on the foundation of the State’s case.

Appearing before Judge Venter at the Palm Ridge Specialised Commercial Crimes Court, the witness — who had submitted three affidavits detailing how Singh and his late sister, Nishani Singh,  allegedly defrauded Investec Bank — conceded under cross-examination that there may have been no intention to commit fraud.

Rushil Singh and Nishani Singh were accused of submitting fraudulent bank guarantees, allegedly issued by Stanbic Bank Ghana, to secure more than R150 million in credit facilities from Investec between 2017 and 2022.

The pair were arrested in 2023 and have been in custody ever since. Nishani, who suffered from severe health complications, died on Saturday at Chris Hani Baragwanath Hospital while awaiting trial. Now, the witness’s testimony threatens to upend the State’s case entirely.

Affidavits Under Scrutiny

During Wednesday’s proceedings, the witness confirmed authoring three affidavits submitted to the State — all of which were accepted into the record by Judge Venter.

While the affidavits outline how guarantees were submitted and how the bank was allegedly misled, the witness admitted they do not directly prove criminal intent.“These affidavits establish a prima facie case,” he said, “but they do not show that the accused acted with intent to defraud.”

He went further, explaining that the guarantees, which were meant to secure substantial loans,  were represented as being backed by cash reserves held in Ghana by the Joint Investment Company (JIC). “It made logical sense to assume the guarantees were backed by cash,” he told the court.

Pressed by the defence on whether Rushil or Nishani Singh knowingly provided false guarantees, the witness replied, “No.”

He acknowledged that many of the email attachments used as evidence in the affidavits were genuine and not forged, a revelation that further weakens the prosecution’s claim of fabricated documentation.

Defence Seizes Opportunity

The defence was quick to highlight inconsistencies in the witness’s account, arguing that if the documentation was legitimate and the guarantees were presented in line with standard banking practices, then the case hinges on misunderstanding, not malice.

“This may be a case of reckless financial conduct, but not criminal fraud,” said the witness under questioning. With the State’s star witness softening his earlier position, the defence believes the court may soon have little choice but to reconsider the charges against Rushil Singh.

Calls for Inquiry Into Sister’s Death

Meanwhile, the death of Nishani Singh has sparked mounting public pressure for an independent investigation. She had been in visibly poor health during recent court appearances and was reportedly denied adequate medical care while in custody.

Her death has raised uncomfortable questions about the treatment of pre-trial detainees in South Africa’s prison system.“If this testimony holds, it means Nishani may have died while innocent,” a legal analyst told reporters outside court.

With the State’s own witness seemingly undermining key elements of the prosecution, and public scrutiny intensifying over the circumstances of the case and Nishani Singh’s death.

The trial continues until Friday.