Tag: fraud

  • Alleged N54.3m Fraud: Court fixes date for trial of NEMA director

    Alleged N54.3m Fraud: Court fixes date for trial of NEMA director

    An FCT High Court in Maitama on Tuesday fixed June 27 to begin the trial of an Acting Director, Special Duties in the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA), Emenike Umesi, charged with misappropriating N54.3 million.

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) charged Mr Umesi with four counts of misappropriation of public funds.

    Justice Jude Okeke granted an adjournment after the new EFCC counsel, N.M. Tertsua, told the court that Deborah Ademu-Etteh, who was handling the case, has been transferred to Kaduna.

    Mr Okeke said that he allowed the adjournment because the prosecution prayed for it for the first time.

    Mrs Tertsua prayed for an adjournment to enable her to produce documents which would be tendered as exhibit.

    Objecting to the application, Japh Njikonye, defendant’s counsel, said the excuse given was “frivolous” according to Section 396 (6) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2019. He, therefore, asked for a cost.

    He said the section stated that ‘in all circumstances, the court should award reasonable cost to discourage application for adjournments’ and asked for a cost of N50, 000.

    NAN reports that the EFCC alleged that on December 30, 2014, Mr Umesi while serving as the Acting Director, Special Duty in NEMA, misappropriated N12.8 million meant for the agency’s operations.

    EFFC said the offence contravened the provisions of Section 19 of Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act.

    The anti-graft agency alleged that the defendant, serving as deputy director in charge of the South-South Zone of NEMA on Feb. 29, 2012, converted the sum of N7 .5 million meant for the agency ‘s operations to his personal use.

    The EFCC also accused Mr Umesi of converting N17.9 million and N16.1 million in March 2012 and October 14, 2013 respectively to his personal use.

    The defendant pleaded not guilty to the allegations.

  • Alleged N2.4bn fraud: FG seeks arrest of Innoson Motors boss, two others

    A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has been urged to issue a bench warrant for Chairman of Innoson Nigeria Limited, Mr Innocent Chukwuma, and two of his employees.

    The appeal was made on Monday by federal government, which has dragged the automobile maker before Justice Ayokunle Faji on allegation bordering on fraud.

    The entrepreneur was accused of a shipping fraud to the tune of N2.4 billion. Others named in the charge are Charles Chukwuma, Maximian Chukwura, Mitsui Osk Lines and Anajekwu Sunny.

    Mr Innocent Chukwuma was first arraigned by the Nigeria Police Force, but the Attorney-General of the Federation later took over the case.

    At the hearing today, the Prosecuting Counsel, Mr Julius Ajakaiye, appealed to the court to order the arrest of the Innoson Motors Chairman and his staff for failing to turn up to take their plea in the criminal charge.

    He said the charge was served on them through a court-ordered February 8, 2016 substituted service following the AGF’s take-over of the case.

    Mr Ajakaiye said since then, the third and fourth defendants had been coming to court, while the first, second and fifth defendants “have refused, failed and neglected to appear in court till date”.

    Consequently, he said the defendants were yet to take their plea and should therefore be compelled to appear.

    He added that an April 12, 2016 amended charge could not be served on the absent defendants.

    Mr Ajakaiye urged the court to grant his application by ordering their arrest.

    But defence counsel, Mr George Uwechue (SAN) and Prof. C. Mbadugha prayed the court to dismiss the application, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to issue the warrant against the defendants “because they were not properly before the court”.

    They said the application offends Order 6 of the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules, adding that there was no proper service on their clients.

    The prosecution accused the defendants of conspiring to unlawfully falsify shipping clearance documents.

    They were accused of “uttering” (presenting) the allegedly falsified shipping documents as collateral to Guaranty Trust Bank Plc to allegedly obtain a loan of N2.4billion.

    The Federal Government claimed that the defendants committed the offence at Apapa wharf on October 10, 2013.

    The alleged offence is contrary to sections 1(2) (c) and 3(6) of the Miscellaneous Offences Act, Cap M17, Laws of the Federation 2004.

    Justice Faji adjourned until July 3 for ruling.

  • Alleged N29bn fraud: Court admits more evidence against Nyako

    Alleged N29bn fraud: Court admits more evidence against Nyako

    The Federal High Court Abuja on Monday, has admitted in evidence, documents tendered by the prosecution, through the 20th prosecution witness, Mr Chris Odofin, in the N29 billion fraud trial filed against a former governor of Adamawa, Murtala Nyako.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Nyako is being prosecuted alongside his sons, Sen. Abdul-Aziz Nyako, Abubakar Aliyu and Zulkifikk Abba on a 37-count charge of criminal conspiracy, stealing, abuse of office and money laundering.

    Some of the documents admitted in evidence include a certified true copy of a document captured ‘Blue Opal Nigeria Limited and Blue Opal sales details.’

    The charge was preferred against them by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, (EFCC).

    Five companies, Blue Opal Limited, Sebore Farms & Extension Limited, Pagoda Fortunes Limited, Tower Assets Management Limited and Crust Energy Limited, were equally charged before the court as the 5th to 9th defendants.

    The witness was led in evidence by the prosecuting counsel, Mr Rotimi Jacobs, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN).

    Odofin told the court that in the course of investigating the case, Mohammed Maji-Iro and Abdulmalik Dalhatu were invited by the commission to give statements, but that they both died before the matter was charged to court.

    He also told the court that Mr. Kobis Ari-Thumnu, former Secretary to the State Government of Adamawa and Mahmud Nyako also made statements to the EFCC, but when the matter was charged to court, all efforts to reach them were futile.

    The defence counsel in court led by Mr. Ibrahim Isiaku (SAN) prayed the court to adjourn the matter to enable them prepare to cross examine the witness.

    The trial judge, Justice Okon Abang adjourned the matter until April 10 for the defence to cross-examine Odofin.

     

  • Alleged N197bn fraud: Court to rule on Akingbola’s objection April 18

    A Federal High Court in Lagos on Friday adjourned until April 18, a ruling in the N179 billion fraud trial of a former Managing Director of the defunct Intercontinental Bank Plc, Dr Erastus Akingbola.

    Counsel to Akingbola, Mr Wole Olanipekun (SAN), had at the resumed trial, opposed the prosecution’s intention to substitute one of its witnesses.

    He also contended the admissibility of certain documents from Access Bank sought to be tendered by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) through the said witness.

    Akingbola was re-arraigned by the EFCC in March on an amended 22-count charge bordering on money laundering.

    He was accused of using N179 billion belonging to the defunct Intercontinental Bank for fictitious transactions.

    The defendant, however, pleaded not guilty to the charge before Justice Mojisola Olatoregun.

    On Friday, EFCC called its third witness, Mr Uyoyou Ewhe, an Access Bank official.

    It sought to tender through him, statements of certain accounts opened in Access Bank.

    EFCC counsel, Mr Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), told the court that he settled for Ewhe to tender the documents because the intended witness had left the bank and was no longer in the country.

    Citing the case of Enahoro and the Queen, 1965, Olanipekun objected to the substitution, stating that the prosecution could not within the law, substitute a witness.

    You cannot substitute a witness in a criminal proceeding; substituting a witness amounts to sourcing for evidence; this is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in the celebrated case of Enahoro against the Queen, 1965.

    If you don’t have your witnesses, you don’t have your witnesses; you cannot substitute witnesses,” he said.

    Olanipekun, further objected to the admissibility of the documents by the witness, arguing that they were freshly sourced.

    He added that contrary to the law, before a criminal case would be filed in court, all investigations must have been concluded.

    The prosecution was sourcing for evidence two days ago in a trial that started 10 years ago,” Olanipekun said.

    He also urged the court not to admit the documents on the basis that they had emanated from Access Bank, which he said was an interested party in Akingbola’s trial.

    Section 83 of the Evidence Act prohibits admissibility of these type of documents, we have addressed your lordship on the interest of Access Bank in this matter, which is undisguised.

    This witness, the maker of these documents, is an official of Access Bank.

    Put succinctly, this documents are Access Bank document, and I daresay the documents were made as a result of evidence already given.

    Responding, Jacobs said that the question of substituting a witness did not arise.

    According to him, even if it arose, the prosecution was not limited to the list of witnesses in the proof of evidence it originally filed.

    He argued that in the case of Enahoro, which Olanipekun cited, the Supreme Court did not decide that witnesses could not be changed.

    He added that by virtue of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, the prosecution was at liberty to file additional evidence anytime before judgment.

    These documents are old statements of accounts of 1990.

    It is just the letter covering the documents and the certificate showing compliance that are new; It is a new bottle with the old wine,” Jacobs said.

    Justice Olatoregun adjourned the case till April 18 for ruling on the issues.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the EFCC accused the defendant of converting an aggregate sum of 1.3 million dollars and 8.5 million dollars, taken from the bank’s GBP NOSTRO account at Deutsche Bank in London.

    The sum was said to have been remitted into the account of Fuglers Solicitors with the Royal Bank of Scotland in London, to purchase property in the name of Life Boat Settlement Trust allegedly set up by the defendant.

    According to the prosecution, the defendant knew that the sums represented proceeds of crime.

    The alleged offences contravene the provisions of Sections 105(1) and 105(a), of the Investment and Securities Act, 2007.

    They also contravene the provisions of Sections 13 (1), 15(1)(a), and 28(3) of the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act, Cap B3, Laws of the Federation, 2004.

    One of the offences also contravenes the provisions of Sections 14(1) of the Money Laundering Prohibition Act, 2004

     

  • First Bank Team allegedly involved in fraud to face reps committee today

    First Bank Team allegedly involved in fraud to face reps committee today

    Investigative hearing by the House of Representatives committee on Public petition will begin today (Thursday) as top echelon staff of First bank are expected to defend how an alleged N630 mililon loan document was falsified involving Whiteplains British School in Abuja.

    The committee led by Rep Uzoma Nkem-Abonta , the petition committee is adjudged as the voice of the masses is expected to dig deep into the allegations leveled against one of the premier Banks in Nigeria.

    In a petition dated November 26, 2018 and signed by the school’s Administrator, Dr Francis Nwufoh, the petitioner had avowed that the bank used forged documents to seal the school over a loan yet to expire.

    In the petition, it was alleged that the bank unileterally sealed off the school over a N630m loan scheduled to expire on June 12, 2019.

    The petitioners asked the committee to address “Why did First Bank of Nigeria file a suit just to claim and take over the School without establishing any monetary debt claim it has against the School?


    ii) Why did First Bank of Nigeria, an acclaimed Judgment Creditor throw the judgment of our Court to a dustbin and on its own seal up the School on a Sunday?


    iii) Why did First Bank of Nigeria allow nefarious persons to deny our future leaders their own “cradle of civilization” School?


    The answer is simple. It is the intoxication of unbridled greed and forgery against an unsuspecting Whiteplains British School that
    wholeheartedly believed that it was relating with an epitome of noble financial body; a bank.

    Nwufoh further alleged in the petition that with the said tripartite agreement, First Bank secured an order of court to appoint a receiver in the process of taking over the multi billion naira school.

    Whereas the bank insisted that it got a judgement in a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1023/2015, to take over the school by appointment of a receiver, the management of Whiteplains are contending that it used falsified papers.

  • Alleged fraud: Court adjourns NBA presidents’ trial

    A Federal High Court in Ikoyi, Lagos State, on Monday adjourned the trial of the President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Paul Usoro, till April 17.

    The adjourned date is slated for treating the three pending applications brought before the court by counsel to the defendants.

    In the application brought by Mr Usoro’s counsel, Ifedayo Adedipe, Mr Usoro is seeking for an order of the court directing the complainant to serve on him a summarised witness statement of evidence of those listed to give evidence in the matter.

    The second application to be attended to at the next adjourned date was brought by the Attorney General of Akwa Ibom State, Uwemedimo Nwoko, Akwa Ibom State Commissioner for Finance, Nsikan Nkan; Accountant-General of Akwa Ibom State, Mfon Udomah; and Margaret Ukpe.

    Their application was filed by Mike Ozekhome on their behalf and prays the court to set aside the bench warrant issued against them. The bench warrant was issued by the court at the last sitting after the accused refused to show up in court.

    The third application was brought by counsel to the governor of Akwa Ibom State, Charles Mekwunye, challenging the jurisdiction of the court to proceed with the entertainment of the charge. The Governor of Akwa Ibom State, Emmanuel Udom, was listed in the matter as currently immune from prosecution.

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had slammed a N1.4 billion money laundering charge against the NBA president and others before Justice Muslim Hassan. Mr Hassan withdrew from the matter for being a former prosecutor with the anti-graft agency.

    The case was later transferred to Chuka Obiozor, another judge at the Federal High Court, Lagos Division, who also recused himself from the case on personal grounds. The case was then transferred to Rilwan Aikawa who adjourned the matter on Monday.

    Usoro was alleged to have conspired to receive N1.4 billion belonging to the Akwa Ibom State Government. The EFCC argues that the senior lawyer should have known he was not entitled to the money.

    Usoro pleads not guilty to the 10 count charge against him. He says the money he received from the Akwa Ibom government was for legal services rendered.

  • First Bank Team allegedly involved in fraud to face House Petitions Committee

    First Bank Team allegedly involved in fraud to face House Petitions Committee

    From Jonas Ike, Abuja
    Many staff in the top echelon of First Bank Nigeria Plc are expected to face House of Representatives Committee on Public Petition over alleged N630million document forgery involving Whiteplains British School in Abuja on Thursday.

    In a petition dated November 26, 2018 and signed by the school’s Administrator, Dr Francis Nwufoh, the petitioner avowed that the bank used forged documents to seal the school over a loan yet to expire.
    TheNewsGuru, TNG recalls that the investigative hearing was stalled last week Tuesday to honour Hon Temitope Olatoye who passed on the previous Saturday.
    In the petition, it was alleged that the bank unileterally sealed off the school over a N630m loan scheduled to expire on June 12, 2019.
    The petitioners asked the committee to address “Why did First Bank of Nigeria file a suit just to claim and take over the School without establishing any monetary debt claim it has against the School?
    ii) Why did First Bank of Nigeria, an acclaimed Judgment Creditor throw the judgment of our Court to a dustbin and on its own seal up the School on a Sunday?
    iii) Why did First Bank of Nigeria allow nefarious persons to deny our future leaders their own “cradle of civilization” School?
    The answer is simple. It is the intoxication of unbridled greed and forgery against an unsuspecting Whiteplains British School that wholeheartedly believed that it was relating with an epitome of noble financial body; a bank.
    It was further stated among others that: “Very disturbing in the Bank’s above loan contract with Whiteplains British School is the curious perplexing strange document, a said Tripartite Legal Mortgage suddenly brought in as if it was part and parcel of the Bank loan arrangements with Whiteplains British School, “The snakey Tripartite Legal Mortgage is said to have been entered into by the underlisted entities: First Bank Nigeria Plc, Whiteplains British School Ltd and France Lee Nigeria Ltd, styled a Guarantor.
  • A fraud like no other, By Amaechi Anaelechi

    A fraud like no other, By Amaechi Anaelechi

    Amaechi Anaelechi

    Most fair-minded Nigerians are shocked at the outcome of the much-talked about 2019 elections. It was an election as no other and as INEC declared the presumed loser, a winner, the election result has entered the history books as a fraud like no other.

    During the last few days to the election, originally scheduled for the 16th of February, 2019 before it was postponed by INEC, Nigerians looked forward to a robust and keenly-contested election that would mark a turning point in the life of the nation.

    Political analysts and commentators of diverse persuasions all expected a closely fought election in which the winner would be the real choice of Nigerians because of the suffering of Nigerians in the last four years during which President Muhammadu Buhari has held sway.

    The importance of the election lay in the fact that it was a poll that would signal the choice which Nigerians had made going forward having suffered incompetent leadership of no small proportion under Buhari’s nepotistic and tribalist government run on his behalf by a cabal of close aides and relations of the Daura, Katsina state born former military officer. Thus going by the declaration of Aisha Buhari, it means that Nigerians voted for the continuation of a government run by faceless people in which the President and Commander-in-chief cannot and would never be accountable for any action of his government. Like during his first term in office due to expire in May this year, Buhari would be surrounded by praise-singers, liars and propagandists whose job would be to take on and rain insults on fellow citizens who demand for accountability and responsibility from their leader.

    In a way, the cabal and the combative array of Buhari’s aides would be right to shut up their fellow citizens who demand good governance and accountability from a man to whom those qualities are alien because in the first place, it is not the votes of the majority of Nigerians, freely given that gave President Buhari his second term. The President got his second term through voter intimidation and suppression, intimidation of INEC officials nationwide as well as a nationwide security clampdown of supporters and officials of the rival Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) by supporters of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC).

    The above means that the 2019 elections was not organized on a level playing field contrary to the Buhari’s government promises. Second, contrary to the promise of the government, the votes did not count as the number of voided ballots across the country showed that ballot tampering was the order of the day.

    Before the election, nationally and internationally, the presidential candidate of the opposition PDP was favoured to win the election based on his achievements and personality. Compared to Buhari, Atiku is a man who has used opportunities available to him to improve his life such that many other Nigerians have benefitted from it to a great extent. As a Customs Officer, Politician and former Vice President and successful businessman, the name Atiku means life more abundant and many including orphans, widows, destitute and the street children in the North known as almajiri have all had a feel of this man. Pitiably, President Buhari, aside being a former military Head of State, and now a civilian President is not known to have shown charity to any group of his fellow humans always pleading poverty but is able to send all his numerous children from two different women to tertiary institutions in the United Kingdom!

    Conversely, the man that we are told by INEC that Nigeria chose to be president for a second term has little time or no time at all for the almajiri school urchins and their illiterate parents who form the backbone of his political support. No right thinking elites anywhere except rogues, who enjoy the lack of accountability and due process under Buhari, would agree that he should preside over the affairs of our country for another four years.

    A lot of unbelievable things happened during the election which INEC identified with while announcing the results. The first already mentioned is the huge number of voided votes. The question is what led to the votes in the first place before the void? Did the INEC register contain more voters name than necessary or that unregistered persons were allowed to vote? Second, how did states like Borno and Yobe, who are suffering insecurity, instability and dispersal of population caused by the activities of the Boko Haram, return huge votes than peaceful states? There are speculations that Buhari’s aides ferried voters from Chad and Niger Republics where he has kith and kin, to swell the voting figures going by the boast and confidence expressed by President Buhari before the election when he said he would congratulate himself because he would win. The question is how can a sane person who before an election when his popularity had waned severely as a result of incompetence and lack of concrete achievements boast that he would win except he had been assured of a rigging plan.

    Third, when the killings, violence and destruction of voting materials that occurred in Lagos, Rivers and Anambra became public knowledge, INEC hastily put out the word that it would organize repeat elections in the affected parts of the three states. Yet, INEC has gone ahead to declare the results of the elections. Now, what becomes of those repeat polls? This gives impression that indeed; INEC and the Buhari government are in collusion to rob Nigerian people of their right to choose credible leaders through the voting process. It will be difficult for thinking people to identify with such a government that emerged through a reprehensible system of voter manipulation, cheating and mass killing of innocent citizens.

    Amaechi Anaelechi wrote from Enugu

  • Alleged N400mn fraud: Metuh fires SAN, hires new lawyer for defence

    Alleged N400mn fraud: Metuh fires SAN, hires new lawyer for defence

    A new lawyer, Abel Ozioko, on Wednesday announced his appearance before a division of the Federal High Court in Abuja as the new counsel for a former spokesperson of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Olisa Metuh.

    Metuh is facing a seven-count charge of diversion of N400 million from the office of the former National Security Adviser, Sambo Dasuki.

    The court had earlier on Wednesday discharged the counsel who was representing the defendant in the trial, Onyechi Ikpeazu.

    The court decision to discharge Ikpeazu was as a result of a letter by Metuh dated March 6 and filed March 12, informing the court of his intention to disengage the senior advocate from representing him in the trial.

    During the session on Wednesday, Ikpeazu told the court that Metuh had debriefed them.

    The first defendant wrote a letter debriefing us.”

    According to him, Metuh said he no longer wanted them as the legal team representing him, noting that he has the right to choose his counsel.

    He said he believes we can no longer effectively represent him and that he has a right to choosing,” Ikpeazu told the court.

    If it pleases the court to grant him his constitutional right and discharge me and other counsel in our chambers from further appearing. I apply that we be allowed to withdraw the application.”

    Responding, the second defendant’s counsel, Tochukwu Onwubufor, said: “In my opinion, he should move the application and affidavit of facts, section 349(7 and 8) which ought to be complied with.”

    Onwubufor is the lawyer for Dextra Investment Ltd, the company charged with Metuh in the trial.

    I do not think a counsel is allowed to withdraw by mere affidavits of facts which were filed by counsel to the first defendant. Before a court ceases to act, it must be an order of the court.

    I urge the court to hear the application alongside the affidavits of facts filed.

    The prosecution has filed a counter affidavit and the second defendant (we have also filed a reply. So the issue has been joined.

    In his part, the prosecution counsel, Sylvanus Tahir, said they were on the same page with the second defendant’s counsel.

    Again, Ikpeazu said “a party cannot be forced to move an application which he has withdrawn.”

    Following argument from both counsel, the presiding judge, Abang Okon, made a short ruling.

    The moment a defendant debriefs his counsel, there is nothing a court of law can do.

    He has a right to engage and disengage counsel as he so wishes because it is his fundamental human right to do so.”

    He cited section 36(6c) of the 1999 Constitution as amended, which states that: “Every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be entitled to – (c) Defend himself in person or by legal practitioners of his own choice.

    Therefore the application filed by Ikpeazu has been overtaken by an event.

    Asking Ikpeazu to argue the motion is no longer of use,” Abang added.

    The court wondered why the legal strategy by Metuh but held that it cannot question the defendant’s decision.

    In any event, I cannot stop the first defendant from presenting who would defend him in court,” the judge said.

    After the ruling, the new lawyer, Ozioko asked for two weeks to enable him to acquaint himself with the matter.

    With the prosecution not objecting to Mr Ozioko’s request, Abang adjourned to March 28 for the continuation of trial on a day-to-day basis.

    Frivolous application for adjournment will not be entertained, Abang added.

  • Court sentences bank MD to four years in prison for $166m fraud

    Justice Mojisola Olatoregun of a Federal High Court, Lagos, Thursday, sentenced a former Managing Director of the defunct Integrated Microfinance Bank Ltd, Simon Akinteye to four years in prison, over 166.9 million dollars fraud.

    The court sentenced the convict to four years concurrent term of imprisonment on the nine count charge preferred against him by the Ministry of Justice.

    The court however, gave him an option of fine of two million naira on each of the counts, adding that same shall be computed cumulatively.

    Olatoregun had convicted Akinteye on Feb. 4, after finding him guilty of all nine counts charge bordering on reckless granting of loans without collateral, preferred against him.

    Meanwhile, the court had on same Feb. 4, discharged and acquitted his co defendant, Gabriel Adepoju.

    The court had then adjourned Akinteye’s sentence untill Feb. 21, (today)

    When the case was called on Thursday, the court called for addresses from counsel before reading the sentence.

    In addressing the court, the prosecutor, Mrs O. Ndidi, urged the court to impose the maximum sentence as prescribed by law, adding that a person so convicted of such offence, is liable to an imprisonment term of five years.

    She argued that in addition, the court is empowered to order a refund of the money.

    I submit that the convict be sentenced based on the appropriate law, and that the money be returned to the NDIC,” she said.

    On his part, defence counsel Mr A. O Sherif, in urging the court for a mitigation before sentence, referred the court to the provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act.

    He urged the court not to impose the maximum sentence on the defendant, adding that he is a first offender with no past criminal records.

    He urged the court to temper Justice with mercy and impose a light sentence on the convict, adding that same should be allowed to run concurrently.

    Delivering judgment, Olatoregun held that the court had been told that the convict is a first offender with no past criminal records.

    She however, held that the convict betrayed the trust of clients of the bank, who had deposited their monies there.

    Taking into consideration that the convict is a first offender, the court sentenced the convict as follows.:

    On count one, four years imprisonment or an option of N2 million fine.

    On count two, four years imprisonment or an option of N2 million fine.

    On count three, four years imprisonment or an option of N2 million fine.

    On count four, four years imprisonment or an option of N2 million fine.

    On count five, four years imprisonment or an option of N2 million fine.

    On count six, four years imprisonment or an option of N2 million fine.

    On count seven, four years imprisonment or an option of N2 million fine.

    On count eight, four years imprisonment or an option of N2 million fine.

    On count nine, four years imprisonment or an option of N2 million fine.

    The judge held that while the sentence is to run concurrently, the fine imposed would be cumulative, adding that the sentence should serve as a deterrence to others.

    In the charge marked FHC/L/234c/16, the prosecution alleged that the convict recklessly and without collateral, approved credit facilities running into 166 million dollars and N33.3 million to themselves

    The convict was said to have at different times, withdrawn from the bank’s account the total sum of N11 million and diverted it to his personal company named ‘Deblad Nigeria Ltd. ‘.

    He was also said to have unlawfully withdrawn the total sum of 166 million dollars and paid same into account of one Temitope domiciled with Citi Bank in the United State of America;.

    The offences according to the prosecution contravene the provisions of sections 15 (1)(a) ,18() and 18(3)a)(I) of the Banks and other Financial Institution Act Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

    The convict had pleaded not guilty on arraignment.