An Nxuba insurance broker joined one of his clients in the dock of the town’s magistrate’s court this week in connection with 52 funeral policies alleged to have been initiated fraudulently. Thembinkosi Nesi helped Nomonde Christmas to initiate more than 150 funeral policies, knowing that she did not meet the requirements to insure the people named in some of the policies. (Photo: iStock) An Nxuba loan shark, accused of taking out dozens of fraudulent funeral policies, returned to the dock earlier this week. But this time she was not alone.
Standing next to her was the insurance broker who allegedly helped her initiate more than 150 funeral policies – many of which have now been flagged as irregular and fraudulent.
The pair now face 52 counts of fraud. It is alleged the broker enabled his client to take out funeral policies despite her having no familial relationship to the insured – a minimum requirement for such cover.
Nomonde Beauty Christmas first appeared in the Nxuba Magistrate’s Court in December where she was formally charged with 34 counts of fraud, totalling R640,000 – and more that 100 policies were still being scrutinised for possible irregularities.
Since then the tally has increased to 52 charges, worth R890,000, and her long-standing financial adviser and insurance broker, Thembinkosi Thomas Nesi, was also implicated in the elaborate scheme.
The pair appeared in court earlier this month where the matter was postponed for further investigation.
In the charge sheet before court, it is explained that when a person applies for a funeral policy on someone else’s name, the applicant must have “an insurable interest in the person covered”.
This means that the applicant must have a family relation to the subject of the policy, and must declare said relationship in order to initiate the policy.
Insurance regulations define “immediate family” as spouses, parents, siblings or children (biological or adopted), and “wider family” as cousins, uncles, aunts, nieces, nephews, grandparents, grandchildren and in-laws.
“In accordance with the ethical conduct standards required of all financial services providers, [insurance providers] rely completely on the financial advisers’ honesty, integrity and professional duty of care, to verify that a valid insurable interest exists at the time of writing the policy... The financial adviser is responsible for confirming the nature of said familial relationship, ensuring that it aligns with the policy terms and clearly explains said requirements to the client when the policy is written,” the charge sheet states.
Nesi, a policy broker and owner of TNL Brokers, is registered with the Financial Services Conduct Authority (FSCA), and was contracted to sell Sanlam products, including insurance and funeral policies. He would earn commission from Sanlam for every policy sold.
In her initial statements to the police, Christmas claimed she was an unemployed pensioner. However, during her testimony at her first court appearance, she stated that she ran a cash loans business, deriving a R50,000 monthly income.
While the details of individual policies were not disclosed at that stage, it emerged that Christmas was paying upwards of R42,000 in premiums to Sanlam every month.
She did not deny holding more than 100 policies with Sanlam, but did not provide any explanation for it either.
The legitimacy of her business is also in question, as she is reportedly not registered as a financial services provider – however it does not form part of the case currently before court.
Charge sheet
According to the charge sheet, Nesi first became Christmas’ insurance broker and financial adviser in March 2010, and continued as such until her contract with the insurance firm was terminated in December 2025, when the alleged fraud was uncovered.
During this period, Nesi helped Christmas initiate 156 policies with Sanlam, earning commission on each one.
Of these policies, 52 have been flagged as fraudulent as Christmas had no familial relation to any of the persons insured.
“It is alleged that the two accused formed a common purpose to defraud Sanlam. Accused 1 through Accused 2 as the financial adviser, applied for and received the funeral policies [while] Accused 2 was paid commission by Sanlam,” the charge sheet states.
During the investigation it was found that Sanlam had suffered an actual loss of R894,982.52 in policies already paid out to Christmas. A further potential loss of nearly R1.6-million was prevented through terminating her contract.
Meanwhile, Sanlam suffered a further loss of R 278,742.59 in commission paid to Nesi for the alleged fraudulent policies.
Christmas remains behind bars after her bail was denied. The court ruled that she knew many of the subjects of the funeral policies personally, as they were her neighbours, and could influence or intimidate witnesses.
Nesi was released on warning.
The pair is scheduled to return to court on 4 May. DM