Following the forfeiture order in 2019, the Bobroffs appealed against that order.
In its judgment on Monday, the SCA held that the high court has jurisdiction to order forfeiture in respect of property situated outside SA and belonging to persons who are presently not resident in SA.
It said section 19 of the International Co-operation in Criminal Matters Act is specifically directed at achieving the effectiveness of a forfeiture order made in respect of assets abroad.
The court said while it does not guarantee the satisfaction of the forfeiture order, it does provide a mechanism for the achievement thereof, which has a reasonable prospect of success.
The court also said the NDPP has satisfied the court that a sufficient link was established between the credit balance in the BMT account and the alleged offences by the Bobroffs.
In terms of the BD account, the court said three of the component accounts could not be explained and those amounts should be forfeited to the state.
However, the court said the remaining two components of the BD account were different.
“In respect of the A$ investment and the US$ investments, a relatively comprehensive set of bank statements have been provided. Ronald Bobroff contends he opened an account with the BD in approximately 1981 and deposited amounts therein.
"Bank statements commencing in 2005 have been annexed," acting judge of appeal Johannes Eksteen wrote in a judgment where four other judges concurred.
He said of the credits in the BD account, $256,217.84 and A$284,785.32, have not been shown to be proceeds of unlawful activity.