A formal letter from South Africa’s Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI) has put fresh focus on the controversy surrounding claims that Zimbabwean businessman Wicknell Chivayo was being investigated for money laundering.
The letter, dated 24 August 2026 and addressed to attorneys representing Chivayo and Intratrek Holdings (Pty) Ltd, states that enquiries were made and that, as at the date of the letter, there was no investigation being conducted by the DPCI against Chivayo or Intratrek Holdings concerning allegations of money laundering.
The document provides a written record of the Hawks’ position and comes less than two months after the controversy erupted publicly in South Africa.
What the DPCI letter says
The letter, signed by the Acting National Head of the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation, acknowledges receipt of correspondence from Mabuza Attorneys dated 4 August 2026.
It then states:
“This office has considered your request, and necessary enquiries were made and as such we confirm that, as at the date of this letter, there is no investigation conducted by the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI) relating to Mr Wicknell Chivayo or Intratrek Holdings (Pty) Ltd concerning allegations of money laundering.”
That wording is significant.
Rather than simply being a public statement or a denial attributed to a spokesperson, the latest confirmation is contained in an official DPCI letter responding directly to a legal enquiry.
The letter, however, also contains a qualification.
It says the confirmation is based “solely on the information currently available to the DPCI” and does not prevent the Directorate from investigating a matter in future if circumstances warrant such action.
In other words, the document confirms the position as at 24 August 2026 – it does not provide immunity from any future investigation.
How the controversy started
The claims surrounding Chivayo centred largely on alleged financial transactions connected to Ren-Form CC, a Johannesburg-based company involved in the production of Zimbabwe’s 2023 election materials.
Reports and social media commentary alleged that hundreds of millions of rand had moved through South African accounts in transactions allegedly connected to Chivayo.
The allegations gained further traction after reports suggested that South Africa’s Financial Intelligence Centre had flagged transactions linked to the matter.
But an important distinction became central to the dispute: the FIC is not the Hawks and does not itself conduct criminal investigations. Its role includes generating and sharing financial intelligence with law enforcement and other competent authorities.
By early July, the Hawks publicly rejected the suggestion that Chivayo was the subject of an active investigation.
Hawks spokesperson Colonel Katlego Mogale was quoted as saying:
“The DPCI has no such case [on Chivayo] in our system.”
That clarification was followed by an apology from News24 after the publication acknowledged that it had incorrectly reported that Chivayo was under investigation by the FIC and Hawks in connection with money laundering.
News24’s apology
The July developments became particularly significant because the claims had not simply circulated on social media.
News24 had reported that Chivayo was being investigated by South African authorities. Following representations from his legal team, the publication acknowledged the error.
News24 said:
“News24 apologises for the error.”
The apology helped shift the dispute from whether an investigation existed to how the claim had come to be reported as fact in the first place.
Chivayo’s legal representatives, including advocate Dali Mpofu and attorney Eric Mabuza, welcomed the Hawks’ position and indicated that they would assess the broader legal implications of the reporting.
The latest letter strengthens the paper trail
The 24 August letter now adds another layer to that chronology.
In July, the Hawks said there was no such case in its system.
In August, the DPCI formally confirmed in writing that, after making the necessary enquiries, it had no investigation against Chivayo or Intratrek Holdings concerning money laundering as at 24 August.
That distinction matters because the latest document is not merely a repetition of Chivayo’s own denial.
It is a response from the law-enforcement body itself.
The wording also means that claims that Chivayo was, at that point, the subject of a DPCI money-laundering investigation cannot be presented as established fact without contradicting the agency’s written position.
But the letter does not say investigations can never happen
There is an important caveat that should not be overlooked.
The DPCI specifically states that its confirmation is based on information available to it at the time.
It adds that the confirmation:
“does not preclude the DPCI from investigating any matter should the circumstances warrant such action in accordance with the DPCI’s statutory mandate.”
That means the letter should not be interpreted as a permanent declaration that Chivayo could never face an investigation.
It says something narrower and more precise: as at 24 August 2026, the DPCI was not conducting an investigation against Chivayo or Intratrek Holdings concerning allegations of money laundering.
Why the distinction matters
The controversy is a reminder of the difference between an allegation, financial intelligence, a police investigation and a criminal charge.
A transaction being flagged for financial intelligence purposes does not automatically mean that a person is under criminal investigation.
Likewise, allegations reported in the media do not become established facts simply because they are repeated.
The July Hawks clarification and subsequent News24 apology had already raised questions about the original reporting. The August DPCI letter now provides documentary confirmation of the law-enforcement position.
Other reporting at the time also noted that Zimbabwe’s anti-corruption authorities had previously said they found no evidence implicating Chivayo in wrongdoing relating to the 2023 election procurement controversy.
The question that remains
For Chivayo and his legal team, the letter is another piece of documentary ammunition against the claim that he was under an active South African money-laundering investigation.
For the public, however, a different question remains.
If there was no DPCI investigation as at 24 August, and the Hawks had already said in July that there was no such case in its system, how did the allegation of an active South African investigation become so widely established in public discourse?
The DPCI letter does not answer that question.
It does, however, put the official position on paper.
As at 24 August 2026, the DPCI says there was no investigation against Wicknell Chivayo or Intratrek Holdings concerning allegations of money laundering.
The story has therefore moved beyond a simple denial.
