4HolerPoler
28th May 2006, 11:26
What a bunch of palooka's - these guys are the regulatory authority - they can't even regulate themselves:
A Multimillion rand insurance policy taken out on the life of a senior official of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has become the subject of a forensic probe — by the CAA. The policy for Mongezi India, then acting chief executive of the authority, is at the centre of an investigation into two investments totalling R60-million made by the CAA last year. It comes after the authority’s audited financial statements were sent to Parliament two months ago. Central to the probe is :eek: R2.5-million:eek: in commission fees paid out on the investments, as well as a R20-million life insurance policy taken out on India, currently CAA general manager for aviation security. Paid upfront, a R20-million policy was taken out as an investment with Momentum Group Limited last year and is to run over five years. Where do they get R20 million from? :confused:
A second investment of R40-million with Old Mutual will mature in September 2009. Kerchinnnnnnnggg - that's 60 million bucks. Oh, this is great!
The CAA hopes to pocket over R28-million, based on a minimum interest rate of about 7.8% on both investments. Although the CAA is the sole beneficiary of the policy, the forensic probe centres on how the two investments were made and the reasons for the commission paid. According to the CAA’s audited report for the last financial year, the investments were made, despite the CAA having no investment policy in place. :eek: A senior official of the Department of Public Service and Administration said this week that all public institutions must have such a policy “before they do anything of that kind”. “[The R20-million investment] doesn’t sound right. This is a public institution that should be providing a service.” The Public Finance Management Act states that “a public entity or a government business enterprise with funds under management must have an investment policy approved by the accounting authority”. The CAA’s audit report, compiled by Deloitte, meanwhile, said the commission fees paid out could have been a “fruitless and wasteful expenditure”. In terms of such investments, payment is passed on to whoever facilitated the deal. The commission :D is effectively paid to a broker — either an independent one or an agent employed by a financial institution. The Deloitte report also said the “no investment” policy existed and that “an economic analysis in support of these investments” was not available. The chairman of the board of the CAA, Duke Moorosi, said a forensic report into the investments would be tabled at a board meeting in two weeks’ time. “Until then it would not be wise for me to comment. The report will have to be approved by the board before I am able to comment,” he said. How ironic - the guy describes his action as "not wise." Shows that he does have some level of comprehension as to what is right or wrong or maybe just bad judgment. Sad that he didn't apply it when investing 60 million bucks of the tax-payers funds in this ill-contrived investment.
India initially asked the Sunday Times to fax him a list of questions. But on Friday he said that following consultation with lawyers he was unable to comment. Both the National Treasury and the Department of Public Service and Administration were unable to confirm this week, in terms of policy and regulations, whether a life insurance policy taken out on an individual by a public entity was allowed. One independent analyst said corporate companies sometimes took life cover for “key personnel”. But India, he said, was in an acting position and boasted “no finite skills”. :} “It’s not like a scientist whose death could greatly influence the value of a company,” the analyst said. Democratic Alliance MP Eddie Trent, who sits on Parliament’s Standing Committee on Public Accounts, said public entities were being treated as “private fiefdoms” by some individuals. He said an investment policy by public entities was “a specific requirement of Treasury regulations”. “It would seem that the management teams of our public companies believe that they need not comply with legislation and regulations that are in place to safeguard public money any more,” Trent said. Collen Msibi, spokesman for the Department of Transport, said the department was aware of the probe “to ascertain the necessity of some of the investments that were made”. “This process is to check whether those investments were to the benefit of CAA. In terms of the CAA’s investment policy, we are aware that a discussion document is being developed.” The forensic investigation, meanwhile, comes two years after audited reports revealed that the CAA wasted money “which, had necessary care been exercised, could have been avoided”. The 2003 report said: “The authority’s audit committee has not established an audit charter to guide internal audit as required.”
4HP :ugh:
A Multimillion rand insurance policy taken out on the life of a senior official of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has become the subject of a forensic probe — by the CAA. The policy for Mongezi India, then acting chief executive of the authority, is at the centre of an investigation into two investments totalling R60-million made by the CAA last year. It comes after the authority’s audited financial statements were sent to Parliament two months ago. Central to the probe is :eek: R2.5-million:eek: in commission fees paid out on the investments, as well as a R20-million life insurance policy taken out on India, currently CAA general manager for aviation security. Paid upfront, a R20-million policy was taken out as an investment with Momentum Group Limited last year and is to run over five years. Where do they get R20 million from? :confused:
A second investment of R40-million with Old Mutual will mature in September 2009. Kerchinnnnnnnggg - that's 60 million bucks. Oh, this is great!
The CAA hopes to pocket over R28-million, based on a minimum interest rate of about 7.8% on both investments. Although the CAA is the sole beneficiary of the policy, the forensic probe centres on how the two investments were made and the reasons for the commission paid. According to the CAA’s audited report for the last financial year, the investments were made, despite the CAA having no investment policy in place. :eek: A senior official of the Department of Public Service and Administration said this week that all public institutions must have such a policy “before they do anything of that kind”. “[The R20-million investment] doesn’t sound right. This is a public institution that should be providing a service.” The Public Finance Management Act states that “a public entity or a government business enterprise with funds under management must have an investment policy approved by the accounting authority”. The CAA’s audit report, compiled by Deloitte, meanwhile, said the commission fees paid out could have been a “fruitless and wasteful expenditure”. In terms of such investments, payment is passed on to whoever facilitated the deal. The commission :D is effectively paid to a broker — either an independent one or an agent employed by a financial institution. The Deloitte report also said the “no investment” policy existed and that “an economic analysis in support of these investments” was not available. The chairman of the board of the CAA, Duke Moorosi, said a forensic report into the investments would be tabled at a board meeting in two weeks’ time. “Until then it would not be wise for me to comment. The report will have to be approved by the board before I am able to comment,” he said. How ironic - the guy describes his action as "not wise." Shows that he does have some level of comprehension as to what is right or wrong or maybe just bad judgment. Sad that he didn't apply it when investing 60 million bucks of the tax-payers funds in this ill-contrived investment.
India initially asked the Sunday Times to fax him a list of questions. But on Friday he said that following consultation with lawyers he was unable to comment. Both the National Treasury and the Department of Public Service and Administration were unable to confirm this week, in terms of policy and regulations, whether a life insurance policy taken out on an individual by a public entity was allowed. One independent analyst said corporate companies sometimes took life cover for “key personnel”. But India, he said, was in an acting position and boasted “no finite skills”. :} “It’s not like a scientist whose death could greatly influence the value of a company,” the analyst said. Democratic Alliance MP Eddie Trent, who sits on Parliament’s Standing Committee on Public Accounts, said public entities were being treated as “private fiefdoms” by some individuals. He said an investment policy by public entities was “a specific requirement of Treasury regulations”. “It would seem that the management teams of our public companies believe that they need not comply with legislation and regulations that are in place to safeguard public money any more,” Trent said. Collen Msibi, spokesman for the Department of Transport, said the department was aware of the probe “to ascertain the necessity of some of the investments that were made”. “This process is to check whether those investments were to the benefit of CAA. In terms of the CAA’s investment policy, we are aware that a discussion document is being developed.” The forensic investigation, meanwhile, comes two years after audited reports revealed that the CAA wasted money “which, had necessary care been exercised, could have been avoided”. The 2003 report said: “The authority’s audit committee has not established an audit charter to guide internal audit as required.”
4HP :ugh: