Sequestration order: Man blames Investec after losing R2.6 million in a six-day gambling spree

Court grants sequestration order to man after R2.6 million online gambling losses. AWestern Capeman who blamed his bank for a system failure that left him facing a R2.6 million debt has lost his bid to avoid provisional sequestration. TheCape Town High Courtruled thatInvestec Bank Ltdhad met all the legal requirements to provisionally sequestrate the estate of Izak Petrus van Zyl, rejecting his defence as unsustainable.

Acting Judge S Yake granted the provisional sequestration order after finding that Van Zyl was factually insolvent and had committed acts of insolvency. The massive debt arose after Investec made an internal systems error in February 2025, which disabled balance checks for tokenised transactions. As a result, transactions were processed even when clients had insufficient funds.

Between 5 and 11 February 2025,more than R2.6 million in online gambling transactionswere processed through his private bank account, despite his approved credit limit being R150,000. Van Zyl contended that Investec effectively extended credit beyond his limit without conducting the affordability assessments required under the National Credit Act. He argued this amounted to reckless credit and added that the bank should not be allowed to rely on its own mistake to sequestrate him.

[paywall]

He further claimed that the excess transactions were not authorised by him and were incurred by his wife’s gambling activities. He said his wife took advantage of the fact that the credit limit was not being enforced. According to him, he had relied on the understanding that his account could not exceed the R150,000 limit.

The court found this argument not genuine because each time a transaction was processed, Investec sent SMS notificationsto Van Zyl alerting him of the transactions. ach time a transaction was processed, Investec sent SMS notifications Judge Yake noted that Van Zyl had applied for an increase in his credit limit on 1 February 2025 — a request Investec declined days before the system error occurred. The court said it was illogical to suggest that the bank would refuse a formal increase and then automatically grant unlimited credit days later.

Importantly, the court held that sequestration proceedings are not debt-enforcement proceedings. As a result, sections of the National Credit Act dealing with reckless credit did not apply in this context.

[/paywall]