adminapplied for discharge at the close of the State case.
The couple, Zhaosheng Wu and Yan Yu, are jointly charged with Dawid Johannes Erasmus, the director of Eras Accounting and Executor Services.
Through their lawyers, the trio argued that they had no case to answer because the State had failed to prove a prima-facie case against them.
They further argued that the State had failed to prove the elements of fraud or prejudice.
Prosecutor Mr Editor Mavuto countered their submissions arguing that the trio has a case to answer.
“There are quite a number of unanswered questions which need to be clarified by the accused persons only when they are put on the witness stand hence the matter should proceed to the defence case.
“The complainant was prejudiced because right now he does not have access to the company, which is currently in the accused’s hands.
“The heavier onus of proving a case beyond any reasonable doubt is not required at this stage but at the end of a full trial.
“From the evidence led, there was a CR14 which was produced and on that the complainant, Atur Fernado Pereia Dias had been removed by the accused persons as a director and Erasmus had imposed himself as the director before appointing the couple as co-directors,” he said.
However, the defence argued that their clients justified themselves on the issue of them becoming the directors.
They said Erasmus had been given the permission by Dias to look after his company while he was out of the country thereby imposing himself as the director so as to properly look after the company.
While on the other hand the couple alleged that they paid Dias his money hence had the right to be directors of the company.
But State dismissed the allegation arguing that they failed to produce proof to show that they indeed paid Dias his money.
Magistrate Mr Never Katiyo remanded the matter to December 6 when he is expected to pass the ruling.
Sometime in July this year the three made a constitutional application to the Supreme Court saying the refusal by Mr Katiyo to refer the matter to the higher court in terms of section 24 (2) violated their constitutional rights.
They argued that their matter was not criminal but civil thus by treating a civil matter as a criminal case, their constitutional rights were being violated.
Chief Justice Godfrey Chidyausiku sitting with Justices Wilson Sandura, Vernanda Ziyambi, Pardington Garwe and Misheck Cheda dismissed the application.
In dismissing the application, the Chief Justice said: “We are unanimously agreed that the charge preferred supported by the facts contained in the State outline reveal a criminal offence.
“The magistrate’s refusal to refer the applicants’ case to the Supreme Court did not violate applicants’ rights under the constitution.”
Allegations are that the couple agreed to buy Monomotapa Garden Furnisher (Pvt) (Ltd) belonging to Dias, but got Erasmus to forge a share certificate purporting he was the director of Monomotapa Garden Furnisher.
They then transferred 1 000 shares into the couple’s company, Shomet Industrial Development.
The shares were valued at US$500 000.
Online Reporter