Hawks investigating Peet and Melany Viljoen for fraud with Tammy Taylor franchises

The Hawks confirmed this afternoon that they are investigating Peet and Melany Viljoen for fraud after a judge ordered in April that a copy of his order be forwarded to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) for investigation and possible prosecution for not complying with the Companies Act.

Brigadier Thandi Mbambo, spokesperson for the Hawks, confirmed that the Hawks are investigating the matter after a case was opened at the Sandton police station.

Judge Joseph Raulinga made the order after a prospective Tammy Taylor franchisee, Lebohang Hlathuka, sued Tammy Taylor Global Franchising as well as both the Real Housewives of Pretoria star and her husband to get back the R600 000 she paid for a Tammy Taylor franchise.

Hlathuka also argued that the way the Viljoens conducted the business of Tammy Taylor Global Franchise is prohibited by the Companies Act, as they were knowingly party to an act and omission calculated to defraud her, and asked the court to refer the matter to the NPA for investigation and prosecution.

ALSO READ: Tammy Taylor Global Franchising gets a big hiding in South African high court

Sections 214 and 216 of the Companies Act

Section 214 of the Companies Act deals with false statements, reckless conduct and non-compliance. It renders a director or any person guilty of a criminal offence if the director or person was knowingly a party to an act or omission by a company calculated to defraud a creditor or employee of the company, or a holder of the company’s securities or with another fraudulent purpose.

Section 216 of the Act deals with the penalties for non-compliance with the Companies Act and provides that someone convicted of an offence in terms of the Companies Act is liable to a fine or imprisonment for up to ten years or both.

ALSO READ: Judge orders Viljoens to immediately stop using Tammy Taylor trademark

Judge agrees Tammy Taylor transaction was unconscionable, unjust and unreasonable

In addition, Hlathuka asked the court to declare the transaction to buy a Tammy Taylor franchise unconscionable, unjust and unreasonable in terms of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and order Tammy Taylor Global Franchising and the Viljoens to immediately cease the sale of Tammy Taylor franchises in South Africa without first obtaining the necessary authorisation and/or license from the proprietor of the registered Tammy Taylor and associated trademarks in terms of the CPA.

Raulinga declared the transaction unconscionable, unjust and unreasonable in terms of the CPA and void. In addition, he ordered that Tammy Taylor Global Franchising must refund Hlathuka her R600 000 with interest.

He also ordered that Tammy Taylor Global Franchising, as well as both the Viljoens immediately cease representing that they have the legal authority to sell Tammy Taylor nail franchises in South Africa without permission under the Trademarks Act and without authorisation or a license.

In addition, he ordered that they must remove all references to Tammy Taylor from their websites, stationery, forms, marketing material, salon products and social media platforms within 30 days from 25 April.

Raulinga also ordered that the Viljoens must pay Hlathuka’s legal costs.

ALSO READ: VIDEO: Tammy Taylor sues Melany and Peet Viljoen for $100 million

Viljoens planning to appeal, on holiday in Perth to start Tammy Taylor franchise

The lawyer acting for Tammy Taylor Global Franchising and the Viljoens informed Hlathuka’s lawyer that they will appeal the order.

After private investigator Mike Bolhuis stated last week that the Viljoens planned to leave South Africa by 24 May, Peet Viljoen told Rapport newspaper that they are going on holiday to Perth in Australia where they will open a franchise.

Bolhuis alleged that the Viljoens already sold some of their assets to finance their “attempt to leave South Africa”. He added that the Viljoens are being investigated for fraud, theft, intimidation, extortion, harassment and contravention of the Cybercrimes Act.

The Viljoens did not respond to a request for comment.