A trial-within-a-trial in the case involving two German citizens accused of fraud and murder saw the defence questioning the validity of documents containing personal information of the accused received from German authorities.
This after it was determined that the South African authorities had followed due processes in requesting information from their German counterparts.
Kristina Adler, 38, and her common law husband Jens Leunberg, 36, have been charged with two counts of fraud and the murder of Claus Schroeder.
It is alleged that Schroeder was murdered by Leunberg after the sale of Schroeder’s Thornhill farm to the pair went awry.
An intricate scam, allegedly committed by Leunberg and Adler, saw the pair presenting documents from a German bank showing that Adler had the finances to purchase Schroeder’s farm so they could start a business in South Africa.
When Schroeder realised the pair was scamming him he was allegedly lured to a kloof near the Owvanuk farm in the Hankey area and murdered.
Schroeder disappeared on August 14 2009 – his body has never been found. Yesterday, advocates for the pair raised concerns about the legal processes followed to obtain the documents and information about Adler and Leunberg.
They asked if the German authorities who supplied the information had done so legally.
State prosecutor Marius Stander told the court that the trial-within-a-trial was to determine if the proper admissions and oaths were taken when the foreign authorities supplied information to South African authorities.
Stander submitted a bundle of documents to the court detailing certain sections of the law governing Germany, Switzerland and South Africa.
Advocate Elsabe Theron, representing Leunberg, objected claiming that it was the status of the documents which needed to be determined and not the content.
This included mutual agreements between South African and German authorities and if due processes were followed in obtaining information about her client.
Representing Adler, Advocate Danie Gouws said his objection was in line with whether or not the German authorities had the jurisdiction to certify the documents.
The trial continues.