Former Bosasa chief operating officer Angelo Agrizzi has been ordered to pay the State R1 666 582 825.73 after the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria found that he benefited from the company’s wider corruption network.
The confiscation order was granted by Judge Mokhine Mosopa following Agrizzi’s conviction on corruption and money-laundering charges in November 2025.
Interest will run on the amount from the date of judgment until final payment.
The court also ordered Agrizzi to pay the legal costs of the confiscation proceedings, including the costs of two counsel. The fees of curator bonis Johan Engelbrecht, of Icon Insolvency Practitioners, will be paid from money derived from Agrizzi’s realisable property and transferred to the State.
The judgment does not mean the State has already recovered R1.66 billion. The order creates a legal obligation for Agrizzi to pay, while the amount ultimately recovered will depend on the assets available and the enforcement process.
National Prosecuting Authority spokesperson Kaizer Kganyago said the NPA welcomed the judgment.
He said it was an important step towards holding people who benefited from corruption financially accountable.
“The confiscation enquiry concerned the benefit derived from Agrizzi’s offences and sufficiently related criminal activities, rather than being confined to the individual payments identified in the criminal charges,” Kganyago said.
“The NDPP (Advocate Andy Mothibi) welcomes the court’s acceptance of the central thrust of the State’s case that Agrizzi’s participation in Bosasa’s unlawful enterprise, and the benefits derived from it, could not be separated in the manner he proposed,” he said.
The confiscation application was brought under section 18 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act. The legislation allows the State to seek an order depriving convicted offenders of financial benefits derived from their crimes and related criminal activity.
Agrizzi convicted after plea agreement
Agrizzi pleaded guilty to three counts of corruption and one count of money laundering in terms of a plea-and-sentence agreement with the State. He was convicted and sentenced in November 2025.
The criminal case arose from his role in Bosasa, the company formerly led by chief executive officer Gavin Watson.
In the plea agreement, Agrizzi admitted that Bosasa operated a deeply entrenched corruption system for more than two decades to secure and maintain government contracts estimated at approximately R2.37 billion.
The judgment records that about R75.7 million in bribes was paid between 2000 and 2016 to secure those contracts.
The methods described in the case included direct cash payments, fictitious or inflated invoices, money siphoned from peripheral operations such as canteens and mine hostels, and so-called ghost employees on the payroll.
Agrizzi admitted that he was personally involved in preparing cash bundles used to pay bribes.
Mosopa said corruption was not simply a method used by Bosasa but the foundation on which the company’s apparent success was built.
The court also heard that Bosasa executives were tipped off about an impending raid by the Special Investigating Unit. Watson then instructed Agrizzi and others to destroy evidence.
Mosopa found that the destruction of evidence showed a deliberate effort to conceal the company’s unlawful activities and make detection and prosecution more difficult.
The State argued that Agrizzi’s involvement extended beyond the individual offences to which he had pleaded guilty. It said the proceeds of related criminal activities should also be considered when calculating the confiscation amount.
The court accepted that approach.
Judge rejects Agrizzi’s liability argument
Agrizzi opposed the confiscation application, which was heard on 30 July 2026. He argued that he could not be held individually liable for the full value of Bosasa’s unlawful activities and proceeds.
Mosopa rejected that argument.
The judge found that Agrizzi had acted together with other executives in furtherance of a common purpose and could not separate his role from the broader criminal enterprise.
“I fully agree with the defendant that he was not the only person involved in the corrupt activities of Bosasa, but that on its own does not exonerate him because he was charged and convicted with acting in concert in furtherance of a common purpose,” Mosopa said.
The court found that the State was entitled to consider the broader financial benefits derived from the unlawful activities rather than limiting the inquiry to specific payments personally received by Agrizzi.
Mosopa also rejected Agrizzi’s argument that his salary, bonuses and gifts were legitimate earnings that could not be treated as proceeds of unlawful activity.
“The remuneration was received in him being instrumental in Bosasa’s bribes, and such can be classified as a benefit from unlawful activity,” the judge said.
The judge also rejected Agrizzi’s reliance on the protection given to pension benefits under the Pension Funds Act. Mosopa found that the pension money had been generated through Agrizzi’s involvement in the criminal enterprise.
Court finds incomplete financial disclosure
A significant part of the confiscation judgment concerned Agrizzi’s financial affairs.
Mosopa found that he had failed to provide a full and frank account of his assets, investments, bank accounts and other financial interests.
The State identified discrepancies between information disclosed during the original restraint proceedings, the confiscation inquiry and information obtained by the curator bonis.
The undisclosed interests included bank accounts, a Bitcoin account, a 50% membership interest in Spilacraft CC, annuities and investments, as well as a R1.75 million loan to Agrizzi’s brother, Claudio Agrizzi.
The court also heard that Agrizzi had not disclosed the identities of people who had allegedly assisted him financially or those whom he had assisted.
Mosopa found that Agrizzi had sold a property in Italy that he had pledged as security for his release on bail, despite the State holding the original title deed.
The curator bonis had not been informed of the sale.
Agrizzi subsequently used the proceeds to buy two properties registered in his daughter’s name. The remaining money was deposited into her bank account.
The curator independently uncovered the transactions.
Mosopa rejected Agrizzi’s explanations for the incomplete disclosures and said several outstanding questions did not require access to documents seized by the curator or the appointment of forensic accountants.
“I am not persuaded by the reasons proffered by the defendant as to why he could not provide full disclosure of his properties,” the judge said.
The court also found that Agrizzi had not shown that the value of the assets that could be realised was less than the value of the proceeds attributed to him.
Agrizzi says he will appeal
Agrizzi has said he cannot repay the amount and intends to apply for leave to appeal against the judgment.
Speaking to Daily Maverick from Italy, he questioned how the State expected to recover R1.66 billion and argued that the figure was far greater than anything he had personally received.
“I’m not Rockefeller,” Agrizzi said, adding that he did not have the money to repay the amount ordered by the court.
He maintained that he had been an employee of Bosasa rather than a director or shareholder and questioned why he should be held liable for the wider value of the company’s government contracts.
Agrizzi said he respected the court but intended to challenge the judgment.
“I am applying for leave to appeal against the judgment, as the law entitles me to, and the order is subject to that appeal. I do not dispute my conviction. I pleaded guilty, and I gave evidence before the Zondo Commission,” he said.
The appeal process, if leave is granted, will determine whether the order is changed or remains in place. In the meantime, the confiscation order creates a legal obligation to pay the amount, subject to any legal challenge and enforcement steps.
From Zondo Commission witness to convicted offender
Agrizzi became a prominent figure during the State Capture Inquiry after giving evidence about Bosasa’s alleged bribery network in 2019.
His testimony described cash payments and alleged political patronage used to secure government contracts. The Bosasa scandal implicated several politically connected figures and public officials.
Agrizzi later became a convicted offender after pleading guilty to the four charges related to his own role in the company’s criminal activities.
The confiscation order is separate from his criminal sentence. The court stressed that the purpose of confiscation is not to impose an additional punishment but to deprive an offender of the benefit of ill-gotten gains.
“The purpose of a confiscation order is not to punish the defendant, but the main purpose is to deprive the offender of any benefit from their ill-gotten gains,” Mosopa said.
The Bosasa corruption cases have continued to result in criminal convictions and financial consequences for people linked to the network.
Former ANC MP Vincent Smith was sentenced to seven years’ direct imprisonment in March 2026 after entering into a plea agreement over his involvement in the corruption scandal.
The NPA said the Agrizzi judgment reinforced its commitment to pursuing the proceeds of corruption, not only securing convictions and prison sentences.
“The judgment demonstrates the potentially significant financial consequences for those who knowingly participate in or facilitate corrupt enterprises,” Kganyago said.
“It also reinforces the principle that the criminal justice system must pursue not only convictions and sentences, but also the proceeds and financial benefits derived from crime.”
Kganyago cautioned that the order should not be confused with money already recovered by the State.
“The order creates a legal obligation on Agrizzi to pay the amount determined by the court. It does not mean that R1.66 billion has already been recovered by the State. The amount recovered will depend on the assets available and the enforcement process,” he said.
The next steps will depend on Agrizzi’s application for leave to appeal, the outcome of any appeal and the State’s efforts to identify and realise assets that can be used to satisfy the order.
For now, the Pretoria High Court order remains a R1 666 582 825.73 obligation, with interest running from the date of judgment until final payment.