Libertas GH director Ahmad Yasin Hossenbocus is embroiled in a developing dispute.
This time involving a R1.85 million bitcoin debt, an alleged fake hijacking, a settlement agreement concluded at a police station and a BMW X3 that later became the subject of competing fraud and coercion claims.
How the bitcoin debt dispute began
According to the complainant’s attorney Jason Saus, the matter began when his client advanced the equivalent of one bitcoin, valued at about R1.85 million, to Libertas after a request by its codirector Zaid Hakimjee.
Yet, the repayment allegedly never materialised. Instead, after repeated assurances that the money was available, Saus said his client was told to expect payment later on the day, in cash.
“‘Look, your money’s in our business account here. I’ll pay you back shortly. I’ll see you at five o’clock tonight’,” Hakimjee allegedly told the complainant.
The meeting never happened, said Saus. Instead, the attorney said his client received a call claiming Hakimjee had been hijacked.
“He got a call from Ziyaad’s wife saying he was hijacked by police on the way. He’s currently at the police station opening a case.”
And while the explanation initially appeared plausible, a later signed acknowledgement of debt contains admissions by Hakimjee that the alleged robbery did not occur and false representations had been made.
The document also records admissions relating to fraud, theft and perjury.
Criminal complaints and settlement negotiations
Saus alleged the matter took a new turn when videos sent by Hakimjee emerged suggesting the complainant’s money had been reflected in a Libex company bank account, a division of Libertas, well after it was allegedly stolen.
Saus then turned to Hosenbocus to collect the owed monies, because, he said, “as directors are both responsible for the repayment of the funds”.
Criminal complaints followed, including perjury and fraud. According to Saus, both Hakimjee and Hossenbocus were arrested.
“I must have got between 50 and 80 calls from different people. Please meet these people, come to the station. They want to do a settlement, they want to pay your client.”
Saus said he eventually went to Sandton police station where a settlement was negotiated. According to his version, Hossenbocus agreed to stand surety for the debt and proposed a package of security that included a truck, trailers and a BMW X3, while monthly payments of R50 000 would be made towards settling the outstanding amount.
“Yasin paid the 50 grand a month for two months,” Saus said.
The payments then stopped. The dispute escalated again when attorneys acting for Hossenbocus challenged the settlement agreement and raised questions about the BMW used as security.
Competing accounts over the agreement
In correspondence dated 2 June, Richen Attorneys alleged that Hossenbocus had been coerced into signing the settlement agreement while detained at Sandton police station and argued that neither he, nor any other person present had authority to pledge the BMW because it belonged to another individual.
Saus believes that argument created a fresh legal problem.
“In the letter they admit to the fraud and misrepresented themselves in terms of ownership of the vehicle,” he said.
The correspondence reveals differing accounts. Hossenbocus’ attorneys maintain he had no personal liability for Hakimjee’s debt and the settlement agreement was signed under duress.
They have also demanded the return of property and indicated they may seek to have the settlement agreement set aside.
Saus rejected that version. He argued that the settlement was entered into voluntarily, that affidavits confirming the arrangement were signed under oath and that the coercion allegations only surfaced months after the agreement was concluded.
Hossenbocus was approached for comment, but had not responded by the time of publication.
