Pick n Pay distances itself from R421k stolen card purchases

Retailer Pick n Pay has distanced itself from a two-day fraudulent gift voucher spending spree after an elderly man was robbed of his bank card, saying the fraud was committed against the pensioner rather than the retailer, despite staff later being disciplined over the transactions.

The Citizen has seen transaction records, internal company correspondence and communications between Pick n Pay and private investigator Brad Nathanson relating to the case, in which more than R421 000 worth of Pick n Pay gift vouchers were allegedly purchased using the pensioner’s stolen bank card at the retailer’s Umhlanga Crescent store during August last year.

The purchases were processed across multiple tills over two days.

The Citizen has seen credit card journals showing dozens of consecutive voucher purchases processed within minutes of one another using the same bank card.

Many transactions were processed in R20 000 increments, with one declined authorisation immediately followed by a successful transaction.

Pick n Pay denied that it held any accountability in the events.

“These were legitimate transactions in our stores. Pick n Pay did not commit fraud against the individual,” the retailer said.

Questions over controls and oversight

Nathanson said he is investigating whether the pattern of transactions – and the apparent failure to stop repeated high-value gift voucher purchases on the same card – could raise broader questions under the Companies Act.

“While the retailer appears to deny wrongdoing, I am investigating whether the way these transactions were allowed to proceed could amount to reckless or grossly negligent conduct in the carrying on of business,” he said.

“At this stage, I am not making a finding. But when a significant amount in vouchers can allegedly be bought on one stolen card over two days, across multiple tills, serious questions need to be asked about controls, oversight and accountability.”

Pick n Pay headquarters said it attempted to report the matter to the police, but was advised that the bank needed to open the fraud case and the victim would have to lay criminal charges against those allegedly responsible.

“We followed our disciplinary process, in line with labour laws, for the staff involved with putting through the transactions,” Pick n Pay headquarters said.

However, via its PR company, Pick n Pay would not say why it had disciplined the employees, what disciplinary charges had been brought and what the outcome was.

Unanswered questions

The Citizen submitted questions directly to Pick n Pay’s Umhlanga store, asking why repeated high-value voucher purchases allegedly failed to trigger intervention, whether store management had been alerted, what evidence had been preserved and what safeguards had since been introduced to prevent similar incidents.

Although The Citizen later received a copy of an internal Pick n Pay e-mail concerning the questions headed “Please see below for guidance”, no substantive response addressing those questions was received before publication.

Wider investigation

Nathanson also questioned why the issuing bank allegedly failed to identify the spending pattern as suspicious.

“There has to be another failsafe. There has to be another system that asks why so many transactions are happening on one card,” he said.

Nathanson believes organised criminal syndicates recruit domestic workers and other vulnerable people to steal bank cards, jewellery and valuables before converting them into easily disposable gift vouchers.

He said that his theory regarding how the victim’s card was obtained remains part of his investigation and has not been established as fact.

Correspondence seen by The Citizen shows Nathanson sought access to employees after learning Pick n Pay had conducted an internal investigation that he understood resulted in dismissals, resignations and disciplinary action, with the retailer later confirming staff implicated in the transactions were no longer employed.

While Pick n Pay said no employees linked to the transactions remained in its employment, Nathanson questioned this when he sought access to the former staff and questioned why a separate criminal case had not been opened.

Nathanson believes the case could extend beyond a single victim.

“I don’t believe my client is the only person. I think there are perhaps millions of rands that have gone through retailers in this fashion,” he said.

He is presently investigating gift voucher transactions at another retailer, later purchased on the same card, too.