Former Steinhoff director Stéhan Grobler was fined to the tune of R359m by the FSCA this week.
A Steinhoff International Holdings NV logo. (Photo: Waldo Swiegers / Bloomberg via Getty Images) | Stéhan Grobler. (Photo: Gallo Images / Beeld / Deaan Vivier) Stephanus Johannes (Stéhan) Grobler, a former director of Steinhoff was this week handed the second-highest fine (R358,750,000 or R359-million) related to fraudulent financial statements for the 2014, 2015 and 2016 financial years, as well as the 2017 half year.
Read more: Former Steinhoff executive granted bail of R150,000 as fraud case unfolds
During those time frames, Grobler served as company secretary, head of treasury and in-house legal counsel of the Steinhoff group. He was also a director of several Steinhoff subsidiary companies.
On Wednesday, 20 March 2024, the Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA) announced it was fining former CEO Markus Jooste R475-million for contravening the Financial Markets Act by issuing false or deceptive statements about Steinhoff International, which Jooste knew or ought reasonably to have known were false, misleading or deceptive.
The FSCA waived any fines against Steinhoff’s former European finance chief, Dirk Schreiber, in return for his cooperation. Schreiber had already been sentenced to a prison term of three-and-a-half years by German authorities.
By the afternoon of Wednesday, 20 March, Jooste would have known about the R475-million fine and that Schreiber had cooperated with the investigation.
He died by suicide on Thursday, 21 March.
/file/attachments/2989/ChatGPTImageMar2202601_18_44PM_327190.png "Graphic created by Neesa Moodley using ChatGPT")
An investigation by the Financial Sector Conduct Authority found that Grobler had contravened the Financial Markets Act, specifically the provisions prohibiting the direct or indirect making or publication of false, misleading or deceptive statements.
Read more: Steinhoff scandal aftermath — The ghost of R510m in fines looms large over Markus Jooste’s estate
The financial statements issued by Steinhoff during the relevant period were found to be false, misleading or deceptive in respect of material facts that were either misstated or omitted. This assessment was made with reference to the information available at the time and the circumstances under which the statements were presented to the market. DM