According to the attorneys, police attended to premises associated with Velocity Venture earlier this month, but the visit did not result in any arrests. Representatives for Velocity Venture (Pty) Ltd have rejected allegations linking the company and its chief executive, Nishant Jain,to human trafficking or labour exploitation, saying the matter has been fundamentally misconstrued and that their clients are victims of a deliberate smear campaign intended to damage their good names and reputation. In a detailed letter sent to The Star on Sunday, the company’s legal team described recent reports as inaccurate and inflammatory, arguing that key facts were falsely reported.
They claim Velocity Venture has been wrongly conflated with an unrelated entity, Velocity Capital Management, and that Jain does not hold the position as ascribed to him. According to the attorneys, police attended to premises associated with Velocity Venture earlier this month, but the visit did not result in any arrests, nor did it uncover undocumented workers or evidence of coercion. They maintain that all foreign employees present were in possession of valid passports and work visas, which were inspected and accepted by authorities at the time.None of the foreign employees were handed to the Department of Home Affairs for deportation purposes.
They maintain that all foreign employees present were in possession of valid passports and work visas, which were inspected and accepted by authorities at the time. None of the foreign employees were handed to the Department of Home Affairs for deportation purposes. The legal team further disputes claims of surveillance, warehouse operations, subcontracting arrangements, or the seizure of documents, saying these assertions do not align with the company’s operational reality.
[paywall]
Velocity Venture, they note, has been under business rescue since September and only partially resumed limited operations at the beginning of December. The company argues that unverified allegations, when reported as fact, have caused significant reputational harmand risk prejudicing any ongoing inquiriesfor the company, its business and Jain.
[/paywall]
