Fraser v ABSA
South African legal case
Fraser v ABSA Bank Limited is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa with import for South African criminal procedure. It concerns the interpretation of chapter 5 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act, 1998, dealing with the restraint and confiscation of property that constitutes the proceeds of crime. It was heard on 23 May 2006 and decided on 15 December 2006 with a unanimous judgment written by Justice Johann van der Westhuizen.
Background
Trent Gore Fraser was arrested in 2003 and charged with racketeering, money laundering and drug-related offences. In November 2004, the High Court of South Africa ordered a provisional restraint order against his property, placing it in the hands of a curator. This order was made in terms of section 26 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act, 1998 (POCA), which authorised the High Court to issue a restraint order prohibiting a person who has or will be charged with an offence under POCA from dealing in any manner with any property subject to the restraint order.
The High Court also had a discretion in terms of section 26(6) to make provision in the restraint order for the reasonable living and legal expenses of the defendant. Gore applied to the Durban High Court for an order directing the curator to sell the property and use its proceeds for payment of the legal expenses in his criminal trial. Fraser argued that the failure to make such provision violated his right to a fair trial, including the right to legal representation.
ABSA Bank applied to intervene in the proceedings.
“Fraser v ABSA” enters the record as south African legal case. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Fraser, ABSA and South can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Fraser v ABSA” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Fraser, ABSA and South provides the most credible route into that argument.
Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 27, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q16839068. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1998, 2006, 2003 and 2004.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Fraser v ABSA”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Fraser v ABSA primary sources, Fraser v ABSA archive and Fraser research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Fraser v ABSA”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Fraser v ABSA” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.