Durban - A Pietermaritzburg woman accused of working in cahoots with her sister to defraud her former brother-in-law was convicted of the charges she faced while her sibling remains on the run.
Yashoda Rampersad, 33, was convicted on 14 counts of fraud and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, wholly suspended for five years, provided she did not re-offend in the said period.
The matter was finalised by Magistrate Anand Maharaj at the Durban Regional Court this week. Rampersad was accused of working with her sister, Raksha Rajkumar Pooran, 37, to siphon money from her brother-in-law’s business account. Pooran is the former wife of doctor Pragandran Moodley, a vascular surgeon.
The State, led by advocate Kuveshni Pillay, pointed out more than R85 000 was paid into Rampersad’s account, spread over 14 separate deposits between June 2015 and November 2018. Before Pooran and Moodley divorced, she was his practice manager, and had full access to his business account and the authority to make payments for work-related expenses.
In 2011, Rampersad started a side business printing and supplying business cards, scripts and other items. She supplied the doctor’s practice with these goods.
However, by early 2015 Moodley was not satisfied with the quality of the products and instructed Pooran to cancel all work from her sister. In December 2018, Moodley wanted to make a payment, but noticed he did not have the requisite funds to complete the transaction.
He questioned Pooran about the account, but she was on holiday in India at the time. Pooran later became defensive, and in January 2019 left home with her new partner, a former security guard that her husband had hired. They married in 2020 and still remain at large.
Rampersad denied the allegations against her, maintaining that Pooran did not tell her about her services being terminated and all the deposits in her account were justified. She said she had good relations with Moodley, prior to the breakdown in the relationship between him and Pooran, and if she had wanted money she would have approached him and he would have given it to her.
She accused Moodley of being “bitter with hatred” after her sister left him, and the court action was a way for him to exact revenge. In arriving at his decision, Magistrate Maharaj said the nub of the matter was the “legitimacy of the payments, (their) purpose, and whether Moodley was being vengeful”.
Although Moodley was the only witness in the matter, Maharaj was mindful of the fact that, while the court needed to be “cautious, and circumspect in evaluating evidence”, that this should not prevent common sense from prevailing.
Having perused Moodley’s bank statement and noticed that at times the balance exceeded R1 million, Maharaj said it was unlikely the doctor would have become suspicious about the amounts paid into Rampersad’s account. Maharaj said no evidence was produced to support Rampersad’s assertion that Moodley wanted to “punish” the family. Instead, Moodley wanted “accountability”, not retribution.
“In my view, it is highly improbable that he (Moodley) would want to put his reputation as a surgeon on the line for R85 234, on the premise of wanting to punish the accused and sacrifice his time to be vengeful.”
Maharaj emphasised that Moodley obtained the divorce from Pooran unopposed, and on the grounds of infidelity and fraud. He regarded Moodley’s evidence to be “concise”, and he was a “reliable” witness.
Maharaj was at a loss to understand why Rampersad’s husband, who was present in court, did not testify on her behalf, as he could have corroborated some of her evidence that had come under scrutiny.
“The only reasonable inference to draw is that the husband would have not corroborated the accused.” The magistrate found it highly improbable that Rampersad was not aware of Pooran’s whereabouts, considering the bond they shared.
“It is Raksha (Pooran) who can vindicate her in this matter and corroborate her version of the payments, yet Raksha chooses to secret herself from the authorities and leaves the accused to fend for herself.” Maharaj believed Pooran was complicit in this matter to siphon funds.
He also found it improbable that the accused would have used 1 000 business cards in the space of seven days at some point in 2015, and questioned why Pooran would also require business cards, as stated by Rampersad, when she was not a freelance employee. “I find the State has established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
You were probably a pawn caught up in this matter.” During sentencing, Maharaj said he was cognisant of Moodley’s “show of mercy” and the fact that he had Rampersad’s interests at heart. Maharaj agreed that a custodial sentence was not appropriate, and held that the doctor should be compensated for the money he lost.
Advocate Shane Matthews SC said his client Rampersad was prepared to pay back the money in R5000 monthly instalments. Maharaj also endorsed Moodley’s request that the entire amount be directed to a nominated charity
SUNDAY TRIBUNE