The bail application of disbarred attorney Peet Viljoen took a dramatic turn in the Pretoria Specialised Commercial Crimes Court on Wednesday, with Viljoen insisting he is not a flight risk, while the state portrayed him as a man who sold off his assets, fled the country and has no verifiable address in South Africa.
Viljoen, who is facing about 400 charges, including fraud, corruption, theft, forgery, uttering and perjury linked to an alleged multimillion-rand City of Johannesburg property fraud scheme, is seeking to be released on bail. The state is opposing his application.
‘No intention of evading trial’
Reading from his affidavit, Viljoen told the court he has no intention of evading trial and said authorities had already confirmed his residential address.
He argued that the charges against him stem from allegations dating back to 2010, claiming the matter had previously been set aside. He further maintained that he poses no danger to the public.
Viljoen told the court that while he was living in the United States, he never concealed his identity or whereabouts.
“At all times I conducted my affairs publicly,” he said, adding that he cannot return to the US after signing documents barring him from re-entering the country for 10 years.
South African business interests
He also revealed that he and his wife, Mel Viljoen, still own beauty product stock worth approximately R6-million and plan to start a coffee shop alongside a new beauty products business in South Africa.
Addressing concerns over witness interference, Viljoen argued that because the case dates back 16 years, all witnesses have long since been identified and publicly disclosed.
“There is no significant probability that I will interfere with witnesses or evidence,” he submitted.
Viljoen willing to surrender passport
Viljoen further told the court that his continued detention is hampering his ability to prepare his defence and said he is willing to surrender his passport, which he claimed is currently in his wife’s possession.
In another explosive claim, Viljoen disclosed that he intends suing the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) for R500-million, alleging malicious and unlawful prosecution.
He insisted the state’s case against him is weak and said he intends to prove this during the trial.
Viljoen also told the court that although he could have requested deportation to Mexico while in the US, he instead chose to return to South Africa voluntarily.
He further claimed that before leaving South Africa, he and Mel were traumatised after allegedly being threatened by armed men carrying AK-47 rifles.
Shoplifting incident in US
Responding to allegations relating to shoplifting in the US, Viljoen distanced himself from the accusations, telling the court that the incident involved his wife and not him.
However, prosecutors painted a vastly different picture.
State prosecutor Willem van Zyl began outlining the state’s opposition by reading an affidavit from the Hawks investigating officer, detailing allegations that Viljoen and his co-accused forged official City of Johannesburg documents to facilitate the unlawful sale of municipal properties.
The investigating officer disputed Viljoen’s claim that he is not a flight risk, arguing that investigators have been unable to verify a permanent residential address for him in South Africa.
The state further alleged that Viljoen committed some of the offences while already out on bail in another matter.
According to the investigating officer, the Viljoens left South Africa in May 2025, and while living in the US, Peet allegedly made disparaging remarks about black people and members of the judiciary on social media. The affidavit also claims he publicly stated that he had sold all of his South African assets.
Prosecutors told the court that Home Affairs records indicate there is no evidence that either Peet or Mel Viljoen returned to South Africa after leaving until they were deported from the US.
Couple ‘deleted social media posts’
The investigating officer further alleged that the couple deleted several social media posts, which investigators believe was an attempt to remove potentially incriminating material.
The state also alleged that despite having their US visas revoked on October 9 2025, the Viljoens remained in the country illegally after being formally notified of the cancellation.
Prosecutors further claimed Viljoen became volatile during his arrest at OR Tambo International Airport, allegedly threatening police officers and accusing authorities of pursuing him because of a personal vendetta.
The state also disputed Viljoen’s assertion that the 2010 case had been dismissed.
Adding to the allegations, the investigating officer told the court that the owner of the Tammy Taylor brand obtained a $4 million judgment against the Viljoens for allegedly using the brand fraudulently and accused them of illegally selling Tammy Taylor franchises.
The state also challenged Viljoen’s claim that he has no other pending criminal matters, saying several fraud investigations involving both Peet and Mel Viljoen relating to Tammy Taylor franchises are still under investigation.
The matter continues before the Pretoria Specialised Commercial Crimes Court, where arguments on whether Viljoen should be released on bail are expected to continue.
- The bail application of disbarred attorney Peet Viljoen took a dramatic turn in the Pretoria Specialised Commercial Crimes Court on Wednesday, with Viljoen insisting he is not a flight risk, while the state portrayed him as a man who sold off his assets, fled the country and has no verifiable address in South Africa.
- Viljoen, who is facing about 400 charges, including fraud, corruption, theft, forgery, uttering and perjury linked to an alleged multimillion-rand City of Johannesburg property fraud scheme, is seeking to be released on bail.
- The state is opposing his application.
- ‘No intention of evading trial’ Reading from his affidavit, Viljoen told the court he has no intention of evading trial and said authorities had already confirmed his residential address.
- He argued that the charges against him stem from allegations dating back to 2010, claiming the matter had previously been set aside.
