The APSYSET Document in Layman's Terms

What this document is, at a high level

This document is a case presentation / grievance dossier prepared by APSYSET (Pty) Ltd (also trading as APSYSET Consulting). It alleges a coordinated pattern of abuse, involving:

• A client company (Masana / PEU / COJ-related projects)

• Liquidators (Westrust, Bombani, SBT Trust)

• Financial institutions (Investec, Standard Bank, SARS)

• Legal practitioners

• State-linked bodies (Master of the High Court, SARS, DMR, Reserve Bank)

• And linked mining interests, notably Four Rivers Mining

The central claim is that APSYSET and its directors were unlawfully targeted, stripped of assets, liquidated without due process, and discredited, allegedly to enable others to take over contracts, people, property, and mining rights.

2. Core narrative thread (simplified)

If we strip the document to its narrative spine, it runs like this:

1. APSYSET was invited into Masana during a crisis and successfully delivered ICT/SAP projects.

2. APSYSET’s success led to:

   • Delayed payments

   • Underpayment

   • Poaching of staff

   • Transfer of projects to competitors (EOH, Hetu)

3. Masana entered voluntary liquidation.

4. APSYSET lodged large, approved claims in the liquidation.

5. Those claims were later expunged without notice by liquidators allegedly linked to Masana’s shareholders.

6. APSYSET itself was then allegedly illegally liquidated, without directors’ consent.

7. APSYSET assets (notably a Bryanston property) were seized and sold under disputed circumstances.

8. SARS, banks, liquidators, and courts allegedly acted in ways that facilitated this outcome.

9. Parallel to this, Four Rivers Mining, linked to APSYSET’s director(s), began facing obstruction and takeover attempts.

10. The document concludes that this reflects a coordinated “white-collar syndicate” operating through legal and financial systems.

3. Unpacking the document by issue area

A. Corporate & Shareholding Structure (Masana / PEU / Investec / Westrust)

Key allegations:

• Masana is a subsidiary of PEU.

• PEU allegedly owns 25% + 1 share in Investec.

• Investec allegedly has interests in Westrust.

• Westrust was appointed liquidator of Masana by Masana executives.

• Westrust, SBT Trust, and Bombani share personnel and business interests

  APSYSET Case Presentation

  .

Why this matters:
This section attempts to establish conflicts of interest:

• Liquidators allegedly linked to shareholders

• Financial institutions allegedly linked to liquidation firms

• Circular flow of money and influence

B. APSYSET’s Role at Masana (Operational Phase)

Claims made:

• APSYSET resolved major architectural and SAP Billing challenges.

• APSYSET expanded rapidly due to strong performance.

• APSYSET contributed to COJ and CIO integration projects.

• APSYSET staff and contractors became deeply embedded at Masana

  APSYSET Case Presentation

  .

Emerging problems:

• Chronic delayed payments

• Underpayment compared to other vendors

• Staff poaching and transfer to EOH and Hetu

• Bullying and managerial hostility

• Senior Masana executives allegedly ignored complaints

Analytical note:
This section supports a motive narrative: APSYSET became valuable, then inconvenient.

C. Human Resources & Personal Harm Allegations

This is one of the most sensitive sections.

Key allegations:

• APSYSET staff were “taken over” to work against APSYSET.

• One former APSYSET employee (Kiran Budde) was allegedly killed shortly before intending to present information to APSYSET

  APSYSET Case Presentation

  .

Important caution:

• This is an extremely serious allegation.

• The document provides no forensic detail (date, case number, police outcome).

This will require very careful, independent verification if pursued further.

D. Legal Proceedings & Masana Liquidation

Timeline alleged:

• APSYSET’s original legal advisor allegedly turned hostile.

• New attorneys (Chuene Attorneys) secured post-dated cheques.

• Cheques totaling R2.7 million bounced.

• Masana cancelled APSYSET’s contract while still using APSYSET staff.

• Masana entered voluntary liquidation soon thereafter

  APSYSET Case Presentation

  .

Key issue:
The timing suggests liquidation following debt avoidance, which is a classic red flag

E. APSYSET’s Claims in Masana Liquidation

Claims submitted and allegedly accepted:

• R3.7 million (work done + bounced cheques)

• R55 million (loss of staff, contract breaches, stolen project)

• Claims approved by the Master of the Court in 2010

  APSYSET Case Presentation

  .

What went wrong:

• Liquidators allegedly expunged APSYSET’s claim

• No notice to APSYSET, its lawyers, or directors

• Legal representative sidelined

This is a procedural justice issue and one of the strongest technical points in the document.

F. Alleged Illegal Liquidation of APSYSET Itself

Claims:

• APSYSET was liquidated without directors’ knowledge or consent.

• AJ Swart allegedly misrepresented a “rescue plan” to secure signatures.

• Conflict of interest alleged.

• APSYSET had money owed by SARS and Masana at the time

G. Bryanston Property (45 Wilton Avenue)

Allegations include:

• Unlawful eviction of directors and family.

• Property sold under suspicious circumstances.

• Conflicting records between Deeds Office and Standard Bank.

• Rapid resale at higher value on the same day.

• Current value allegedly far higher than sale price

  APSYSET Case Presentation

  .

This section raises possible fraud, unlawful eviction, and asset stripping issues.

H. SARS Involvement

Claims:

• SARS alleged APSYSET was non-compliant.

• APSYSET claims it was up to date and had paid R9.7m–R11m.

• SARS allegedly refused to provide a full statement.

• Specific SARS officials named as involved

  APSYSET Case Presentation

  .

This is potentially administrative abuse

I. Four Rivers Mining Projects

Key points:

• Mining and dump applications lodged 2011–2012.

• Community approvals allegedly obtained.

• Rights later diverted to Four Rivers.

• Numerous individuals and entities allegedly attempted forced partnerships or takeovers.

• Alleged illegal mining on the dump by third parties

  APSYSET Case Presentation

  .

Connection to APSYSET:
The document argues the same network targeted APSYSET to neutralise its directors and gain mining assets.