THE Harare Magistrates Court has this week acquitted property developer Leon Zvarevashe and a second accused Nyasha Mhuru in a closely watched fraud case, after ruling that the State failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant was deceived into selling her Hillside, Harare property.
The two had been charged with fraud over a transaction that took place on 6 February 2023. Prosecutors alleged they misrepresented to complainant Debra Mullin that she was signing paperwork for a US$50,000 loan agreement, when she was in fact signing a contract of sale for her house valued at approximately US$250,000.
Throughout the trial, both accused pleaded not guilty. They maintained that the transaction was a legitimate agreement of sale and not a loan arrangement masked as a property transfer.
The State led evidence from five witnesses and tendered several exhibits, including an audio recording allegedly made on the day the documents were signed. In her testimony, Mullin said she believed her house was only being used as collateral for a loan meant for her daughter. She told the court she was assured the agreement of sale was a formality and would not result in an actual sale of the property.
According to Mullin, the parties settled on a US$30,000 loan, of which her daughter allegedly received US$20,000. She said problems began when repayment stalled, prompting her to try to locate the accused persons before eventually reporting the matter to police.
The defence countered that the complainant knowingly sold the property. The first accused told the court he was in the business of buying and selling houses and denied ever dealing in loans. He produced 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, saying she had merely introduced the parties.
In its judgment record of which seen by this publication, the court relied heavily on the documentary evidence. The magistrate observed that multiple documents signed by the complainant consistently referred to a sale transaction and made no reference to any loan agreement. The court questioned why the complainant would sign acknowledgements confirming receipt of substantial sums of money, including an acknowledgement of receipt for US$100,000, if she genuinely believed she was only securing a loan.
The court ultimately found that the State had failed to prove the essential element of misrepresentation required for a fraud conviction. The magistrate ruled that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the accused persons had intentionally deceived the complainant into signing the agreement of sale.