Willah Joseph Mudolo has spent much of his public life presenting himself as an international businessman, investment specialist and African development advocate. His corporate biography describes him as co-founder and President of Global Operations at African Development Funding Group, with interests ranging from mining and agriculture to energy, real estate, education and media. But behind that business profile sits a far more complicated record: a South African criminal prosecution involving an alleged R102 million investment scheme, a separate New York civil dispute involving allegations of fraud, forgery and misappropriation, multiple companies connected to his business network, and a criminal trial that remains unresolved in Pretoria as of September 2026.
Mudolo is a Zambian national whose public biographies identify him as Willah Joseph Mudolo. Some publications shorten his name to Willah J. Mudolo or, less precisely, Joseph Mudolo. There is also conflicting information about his age. A Zambia Reports profile gives his date of birth as August 25, 1980, while Companies House records for different UK companies connected to him contain inconsistent birth-year information, including August 1980 and July 1978. That makes a precise age difficult to establish from independent corporate records, although the 1980 date is repeatedly reported in public biographies.
The business network surrounding Mudolo is extensive. UK Companies House records connect him to African Development Funding Group Ltd, Headstone Group Ltd, Rising Property Management Ltd, Rising Corporate Management Ltd, Rising Resources Pty Ltd and Hesed Holdings Ltd, with several of those companies now dissolved. Companies House records show Mudolo was a director of African Development Funding Group Ltd from May 2020 until July 2024, while an older company with the same name records him as a director from 2014 and identifies him as holding 75% or more of the voting rights at one point. South African reporting has separately identified Rising Estates, Rising Estate Holdings and Rising Estate Mnandi Development as companies associated with Mudolo and his wife, Zethu Mudolo.
The most serious matter is the criminal case in South Africa. Mudolo, his wife Zethu, Rising Estates and several other defendants were arrested in October 2020 and eventually arraigned in a Pretoria High Court case involving fraud, theft, money laundering, racketeering and alleged violations of the Companies Act. A January 2025 High Court judgment records that Mudolo and his wife were arrested on October 17, 2020, and that the case involved contraventions of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act, fraud, theft and Companies Act provisions.
The prosecution concerns an investment scheme linked to Shepherd Bushiri’s Enlightened Christian Gathering church. According to South African reporting from the bail proceedings, investors were encouraged to put money into Shepherd Bushiri Investments and Rising Estates, with returns of 50% within three months being promoted. The alleged offences date from 2017 to 2019, and prosecutors have put the value of the alleged fraud at approximately R102 million. Media reports documented individual investors saying they had borrowed money or committed large portions of their savings after being promised unusually high returns. One reported investor said she put R100,000 into the scheme and had still not received the promised return. Those accounts are important evidence of the public allegations surrounding the scheme, but they are not themselves findings of criminal liability.
The regulatory backdrop also matters. South African reporting during the bail proceedings stated that the companies involved in the investment solicitation were not registered under the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act. That is separate from a conviction for fraud and should not be treated as one. The Financial Sector Conduct Authority has separately taken enforcement action against Shepherd Bushiri Investments in the past, including an order under the Financial Sector Regulation Act, although that regulatory action was against the company and not a finding that Mudolo personally committed the conduct covered by that order.
Mudolo has contested the prosecution. During the proceedings, his defence challenged aspects of the State’s case and the handling of the prosecution. He also accused authorities of wrongdoing in relation to evidence and proceedings. In December 2020, for example, his defence claimed that his signature had been forged on a document concerning cellphone access while he was in custody. The State, meanwhile, alleged during the bail proceedings that Mudolo had access to mobile phones in custody and that conversations concerning a possible bribe to court officials had taken place. That was a prosecution allegation presented in court, not a finding that Mudolo was convicted of bribery.
The criminal proceedings have been repeatedly delayed. In a January 2025 judgment, Judge Mokhine Mosopa dealt with applications concerning delay and recorded that the matter involved serious and complex charges and an anticipated expert witness. The court also found that applications and procedural disputes had contributed to delays. A separate 2024 judgment states that the trial had been scheduled around 350 charges of fraud, money laundering and racketeering under the Prevention of Organised Crime Act.
The legal disputes did not end there. Mudolo and his wife challenged the prosecution and sought changes involving prosecutors and judicial proceedings. In April 2026, the Pretoria High Court rejected an application intended to prevent racketeering charges from proceeding. A subsequent judgment explained that Mudolo’s earlier interlocutory applications had contributed to the delay in the trial. In May 2026, a Judicial Conduct Committee also dismissed a complaint Mudolo had brought against Judge Holland-Muter, finding the complaint unestablished.
His bail conditions have remained significant. In a May 2026 judgment, the High Court refused Mudolo’s request to temporarily relax restrictions so he could travel to Zambia to see his seriously ill mother. The court noted that his passport had been surrendered and that existing bail conditions restricted travel outside South Africa. This provides the clearest recent public indication of his whereabouts: the latest court reporting places him in South Africa, participating in the Pretoria proceedings rather than living freely outside the jurisdiction.
As of September 2026, the criminal case is still alive. SABC reported on September 9 that the R102 million trial involving Mudolo, his wife and four other remaining accused was continuing in the Pretoria High Court and that all accused had pleaded not guilty. On September 10, another report said Judge Mudunwazi Makamo had rejected a defence application seeking his recusal, meaning the trial was set to continue under his supervision. The defence had argued that the judge was biased, while prosecutors opposed the application. There is therefore no basis to describe Mudolo as convicted: the case remains a prosecution in which the accused have pleaded not guilty.
There is a second legal thread that is less visible but potentially significant. In New York, Leonid Zavlunov and Strategic Global Experts sued Mudolo, Stanislav Shvartsman and African Development Funding Group in connection with what the complaint described as a fraudulent bank guarantee. The 2020 complaint alleged fraud and misappropriation. A later 2022 complaint sought $4.1 million and alleged fraud and forgery. OffshoreAlert also records a default judgment entered in April 2023 in the litigation. But the procedural history is crucial: on June 20, 2023, Zavlunov filed a notice expressly discontinuing the proceeding against Mudolo and African Development Funding Group without prejudice. The available records therefore do not justify describing the New York allegations as a final finding of fraud against Mudolo personally, nor do they establish that the $4.1 million demand became a judgment against him.
Mudolo has also pushed back publicly against negative reporting. In July 2025, a letter sent by Faheem Ahmed to OffshoreAlert requested removal or de-indexing of pages concerning Mudolo, describing the material as false, harmful and defamatory and invoking possible South African and international privacy and defamation laws. OffshoreAlert published the letter alongside its reporting rather than treating the allegations as established fact.
That contrast is central to understanding the record. Mudolo is not simply the subject of internet accusations: there are actual court proceedings, corporate filings, regulatory records and filed complaints bearing his name. At the same time, allegations contained in a complaint are not convictions, investor complaints are not judicial findings, and the New York case against Mudolo and African Development Funding Group was discontinued without prejudice. The South African criminal case is different because it remains active, with prosecutors pursuing charges and the accused maintaining not-guilty pleas.
Mudolo continues to present himself as an international entrepreneur and ADF Group executive, with the company’s own website still describing him as President of Global Operations and a specialist in project development, mining, agriculture, energy, petroleum, real estate and education. Public profiles also associate him with the WJ Mudolo Foundation and various African development initiatives. The gap between that public business profile and the unresolved criminal prosecution is precisely why the case deserves scrutiny. For investors, consumers and anyone considering high-return financial opportunities, the lesson is straightforward: impressive corporate credentials and ambitious development claims do not substitute for independently verified licences, audited financial information, transparent ownership structures and a clear record of how investor money is handled. Until the South African proceedings are resolved, the most consequential questions surrounding Mudolo remain questions for the court—not conclusions that can responsibly be written as settled fact.
Source:
OffshoreAlert
————-
Disclaimer:
Some content on Reportingscams.com is published under our guest post program and is provided by third-party contributors. Reporting scams does not create, verify, or take responsibility for the views, accuracy, or claims expressed in such content.
