In a closely watched fraud case, the Magistrates Court has acquitted two accused persons, including property developer Leon Zvarevashe, after finding that the State failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant had been deceived into selling her Hillside, Harare property.
The two accused person had faced allegations of fraud arising from a transaction concluded on 6 February 2023. The State alleged that they misrepresented to complainant Debra Mullin that she was signing documents for a US$50,000 loan agreement, when in fact she was unknowingly signing a contract of sale for her house valued at approximately US$250,000.
Both accused pleaded not guilty throughout the trial, insisting that the transaction was a legitimate Agreement of sale and not a loan arrangement disguised as a property transfer
During the trial, the State called five witnesses and produced several exhibits, including an audio recording allegedly made on the day the documents were signed. Mullin told the court that she believed her house was only being used as collateral for a loan intended for her daughter. She claimed she was assured that the agreement of sale was merely a formality and would not amount to an actual sale of the property.
According to her testimony, the parties ultimately agreed on a US$30,000 loan, of which her daughter allegedly received US$20,000. Problems arose when repayment stalled, leading Mullin to attempt to locate the accused persons before eventually filing a police report.
The defence, however, maintained that the complainant knowingly sold the property. The 1st Accused person told the court he was in the business of buying and selling houses and denied ever dealing in loans. He produced several documents, including the signed agreement of sale, acknowledgements of receipt of payment, a power of attorney authorising transfer of the property, and title deed-related documents. The second accused also denied involvement in any loan arrangement, stating she had merely introduced the parties.
In its judgment, the court placed significant emphasis on the documentary evidence. The magistrate noted that multiple documents signed by the complainant consistently referred to a sale transaction and made no mention of any loan agreement. The court questioned why the complainant would sign acknowledgements confirming receipt of substantial sums of money if she genuinely believed she was only securing a loan. It was put in question why she signed an Acknowledgment of receipt of USD 100 000.
The court ultimately ruled that the State had failed to prove the essential element of misrepresentation required for a fraud conviction. The magistrate found that insufficient evidence existed to establish that the accused persons had intentionally deceived the complainant into signing the agreement of sale.
