The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Money laundering

  • Diezani cash: EFCC rejects ex-minister’s settlement offer

    Diezani cash: EFCC rejects ex-minister’s settlement offer

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Thursday rejected an offer for an out-of-court settlement by a former Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Jumoke Akinjide, who was accused of money laundering.

    Akinjide was charged along with former Minister of Petroleum Resources, Mrs Diezani Alison-Madueke, who is said to be at large, a former Senator Ayo Adeseun and a People’s Democratic Party (PDP) stalwart Chief Olarenwaju Otiti.

    They were accused of conspiring to directly take possession of N650million, which they reasonably ought to have known forms part of the proceeds of an unlawful act, and without going through a financial institution.

    Justice Muslim had adjourned to enable parties conclude the settlement talks after Akinjide’s lawyer Chief Bolaji Ayorinde (SAN) reported that the N650million had been returned.

    Thursday, EFCC’s lawyer Nnaemeka Omenwa, who stood in for Rotimi Oyedepo, said he was instructed to turn down the proposal.

    “I have instruction to reject the proposal as it’s not in line with the provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA). Based on that, we’re ready to go on with the trial, subject to your Lordship’s overriding convenience,” he said.

    But defence counsel Ayorinde and Michael Lana (for second defendant) accused Oyedepo of a breach of agreement.

    Ayorinde said the defendants made a proposal to the prosecution in line with Section 14 of the EFCC Act.

    “For the purposes of your Lordship’s record and because of the public interest that this case seems to unnecessarily attract, our proposal was made in accordance with established laws and there is no fixation on Section 270 of the ACJA.

    “We’re very confident that this case is a sham and we’ll defend it vigorously. It’s political and we’ll show that it’s unnecessary and a waste of time and resources of the court,” Ayorinde said.

    Lana accused EFCC breaching an agreement reached by parties with regards to the settlement, saying it amounted to a “betrayal”.

    He said the defendants agreed to withdraw a civil suit against EFCC and Oyedepo after the prosecuting counsel indicated that the commission was open to an out of court settlement.

    “Their refusal to consider the terms of settlement is to say the least a betrayal of trust by a lawyer. A representation was made to us that we should withdraw a civil suit we filed. Oyedepo is the first defendant in the suit.

    “He made a proposal to us which we believed. On the day of the first arraignment in Ibadan, Oyedepo and Chief Ayorinde informed the court that they had agreed to settle. But the judge decided that the defendants should be arraigned while the talks continued.

    “We withdrew the suit and the money they requested was paid. That’s why we were surprised when we received a hearing notice. A lawyer’s words should be sacrosanct. That’s an abuse of office. Oyedepo was the initiator of the settlement. That’s like 419. We’re highly disappointed with Oyedepo,” Lana said.

    But, Omenwa denied that the case was politically motivated, adding that there was no proof to support the claims against Oyedepo.

    “The EFCC is not a political party. We’re an independent organisation and are not out to witch-hunt anybody.

    “There is no documentary evidence that they had any such agreement with Oyedepo that they should withdraw their suit. There’s no evidence before my Lord,” he said.

    In short ruling, Justice Hassan said since settlement talks had “broken down,” EFCC was at liberty to call its witness.

    Trial began immediately with Omenwa calling the first witness, a banker Mrs Kehinde Adeniyi, who said she is the Head of Customer Relations at her bank’s Dugbe, Ibadan branch. She said she knew Akinjide and Adeseun.

    Asked to narrate her connection with them, she said: “On March 26, 2015, I received a call from our Head of Operations Mr Martins Izuegbe that we should pay the sum of N650million to Akinjide, Adeseun and Hon Taiwo Yinka once they produce two means of identification and sign a receipt of payment.

    “They came, signed and the payment was made. The payment was in naira. They came with their Hillux van to pick up the cash in a box.”

    The receipt of payment was tendered in evidence.

    The witness said under cross examination by Chief Ayorinde that she made three statements at the EFCC, which were also tendered in evidence.

    Adeniyi said she merely carried out instructions, and that she did not know the source of the funds.

    She added that she knew Mrs. Alison-Madueke, and that she did not know how the money was used.

    Justice Hassan adjourned until March 8 and 9 for continuation of trial.

    Read Also: Diezani cash: EFCC re-arrests ex-INEC chief for ‘diverting’ N450m

  • EFCC opposes bid by ex-minister, senator to quash money laundering charge

    EFCC opposes bid by ex-minister, senator to quash money laundering charge

    THE Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) yesterday urged the Federal High Court in Lagos not to grant an application by Senator Ayo Adeseun challenging the court’s jurisdiction to try him for money laundering.

    The commission charged Adeseun along with a former Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Jumoke Akinjide, for allegedly laundering N650 million.

    Also named in the charge are Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) stalwart Chief Olanrewaju Otiti and former Minister of Petroleum Resources, Mrs. Diezani Alison-Madueke, who was said to be at large.

    Adeseun, through his lawyer Michael Lana, filed two applications, both of which were adopted by Akinjide and Otiti.

    In the first one, the defendants are praying Justice Muslim Hassan to strike out the charge because it was not properly served on them as provided in the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015.

    Lana said Section 382 (2) of ACJA provides that the court shall within 10 working days of assignment of a case “issue notice of trial to the witnesses and defendants…”

    According to him, the EFCC did not comply with the provision as it was prosecuting counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo, who personally served the defendants with the charge.

    “The charge had the endorsement of the prosecuting counsel and he undertook to serve. The fact that the defendants are in court does not cure the non-service of the charge. Our objection is on non-compliance, not the validity of the charge. Once there’s no service before an arraignment, everything collapses. We have not been served,” he said.

    On the fact that the court issued a hearing notice, the lawyer said the ACJA does not make provision for substituted service.

    “It is the court that is to serve the charge on the defendants, not the prosecutor, who is an interested party. The registrar of the court must issue the notice and serve it either through the police or the bailiff,” he said.

    Akinjide’s lawyer Chief Bolaji Ayorinde (SAN) agreed with Lana’s submissions, adding that the procedure adopted by EFCC in serving the charge was “incompetent”, therefore, “the charge should be struck out”.

    Otiti’s lawyer Akinola Oladeji said the EFCC counsel “personally handed over the charge to the defendants,” adding that “it was not his (Oyedepo’s) business to do so”.

    He insisted that “the procedure in the law was not followed”.

    In the second application, Adeseun is praying the court to decline jurisdiction because the charge does not fall under issues over which the court can adjudicate on as provided in the constitution.

    But, Oyedepo urged the court to dismiss the applications.

    On the issue of non-service, the EFCC lawyer said the judge directed that notices be issued, adding that with the defendants’ arraignment, the application had become an academic exercise.

    “The essence of the notice is to ensure that parties are made aware of the charge. The defendants are here (in court), meaning they have been notified,” he said.

    On the issue of jurisdiction, Oyedepo said EFCC would prove during trial that the laundered money came from agencies over which the court has jurisdiction.

    EFCC accused the defendants of conspiring to obtain the N650 million from Mrs. Alison-Madueke, in the build-up to the 2015 general elections.

    The prosecution said they reasonably ought to have known “that the money formed part of the proceeds of an unlawful act”.

    The defendants pleaded not guilty. Their trial will resume today.

  • Money laundering: Dilemma of a conflicted govt

    The controversy surrounding the suspension of Nigeria from the Egmont Group and the outburst of Professor Itse Sagay on the attitude of the Nigerian Government towards the fight against corruption cast a shadow of doubt on the sincerity of the Buhari-led administration.

    In any case, there is so much distrust in Nigeria that people find it difficult to believe that any government can genuinely fight corruption, despite the anti-corruption mantra it rode to victory in the 2015 polls. However, upon a closer examination of key institutions that should assist the government in its endeavor, one sees that it is yet business as usual.

    Nothing has really changed, corruption in the police force has gained momentum, degenerating into absurdity. The Nigerian Police hawks corruption on the streets with impunity, making many question their readiness and willingness to fight corruption. The lackluster approach of the Independent Corrupt Practices and other Offences Commission (ICPC) to the prosecution of perceived offenders and the media prosecution by Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is quite unfashionable.

    The key concern of the Egmont Group is lack of transparency in the administration of the Nigeria Financial Intelligent Unit (NFIU) under the control and supervision of the EFCC. Nigeria has consistently ignored and reneged on its commitment to make the NFIU independent of government interference as provided under Recommendation 29 of the International Standard set by the Financial Action Task Force (FAFT).

    Despite a change of government in Nigeria, there is little evidence that the Buhari administration is indeed committed to change. The government must embark on key institutional reforms in order to effectively fight corruption and for it to be taken seriously by the international community.  Why do we need to bother over the suspension of Nigeria by the Egmont Group and what exactly are the activities of the Group? The Egmont Group is a body composed of 154 financial intelligence units across the world. It is an informal international association of Financial Intelligent Units (FIU) set up in 1995 to provide a forum for mutual co-operation and to share information.

    The aim of the Egmont Group is to fight money laundering and terrorism financing through exchanges of expertise and financial intelligence.  Anyone familiar with these matters knows that the need for collaboration across borders is informed by the international nature 0f money laundering and terrorism financing. Any country that wants to succeed in its fight against terrorism and money laundering must, therefore, align with the goals and objectives of the Egmont Group. This is why experts and other members of the public were alarmed when it became public that Nigeria’s membership of the group has been suspended. To be clear, the suspension is a fatal blow to the current administration’s fight against corruption and a big threat to Nigeria’s financial system which struggled in recent times.

    The inability of the government to trace the source of funding of Boko Haram and their sponsors till date attest to the vulnerability of the Nigerian’s financial system. It is part of the broad mandate of NFIU to protect the financial system from abuse by terrorists.  The effort of the Nigerian army must be complemented by the NFIU if the fight against insurgency in the North East must be won. No doubt, Boko Haram has sustained its fight against the Nigerian state by exploiting the weaknesses of the country’s financial system. While everyone can appreciate that our national security is threatened by terrorism, we also need to be alert to how our financial system is also compromised by terrorist activities.

    The NFIU like its counterpart around the world is established to carry out the following three basic functions;

    • To act as a central repository of reports of suspicious transactions and other disclosures
    • To analyse the reports received in order to determine which constitute evidence of potential criminality activity.
    • To disseminate the resulting intelligence as part of a country’s efforts at anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism.

    Failure to demonstrate commitment to these functions with regards to the independence of the NFIU defeats the very essence of Nigeria’s membership of the Egmont group.  The Nigerian financial system is part of the global financial system and cannot operate in isolation. Therefore, in order not to be cut off from the rest of the world, the NFIU must be restructured in a manner that confers independence and neutrality.

    The implication of Nigeria’s suspension from the Egmont group has a far-reaching effect.  NFIU is shutdown from accessing the Egmont Secure Web (ESW) and cannot exchange sensitive information with other member countries in order to carry out international investigation. Nigerian banks may soon be unable to enjoy corresponding banking services which may hamper international monetary transactions and trade.

    The cooperation Nigeria enjoys from other FIUs in the recovery of looted funds will be withdrawn whilst International donor agencies may redirect international intervention funds to other countries within the Egmont Group.  If nothing is done before the deadline set by the Egmont Group, Nigeria will eventually make the list of Non-Cooperating Countries and Territories. Dealing with Nigerian banks will require enhanced due diligence by other financial institutions around the world. We certainly do not want these needless hassles.

    Considering the inappropriate manner the NFIU is being managed under the EFCC, we are faced with a grave concern, especially because the NFIU is deprived of the credibility it deserves. The NFIU has been accused of divulging confidential information and constantly leaking sensitive intelligence to political interest groups and the media.  If there is any truth in this allegation, then the trust component of the mutual cooperation among members of the Egmont Group is eroded and undermined by the NFIU. There is, therefore, a need to restructure the NFIU itself, a process that can take different forms.

    However, it must be stated that having the NFIU under the EFCC is not the problem as it were; it is the body’s lack of independence within the EFCC that needs to be addressed. There are different models of FIUs that may be considered outside the current model. The most important factor in any structure or model is independence of the NFIU.

    • To be continued next week
  • Money laundering: Ex-governor’s son remanded in EFCC custody

    Money laundering: Ex-governor’s son remanded in EFCC custody

    A Kano Federal High Court yesterday remanded Nuriani Adamu, son of former Nasarawa State Governor  Adamu Abdullahi, in the custody of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission ( EFCC ) over charges of fraud and money laundering.

    He was arraigned with Felix Onyago on an amended six-count charge of money laundering and illegal diversion of N32 million.

    The defendants pleaded not guilty.

    Their counsel Mr Mamman Lawan applied for their bail under Section 36 (6)(b) 5 and Section 35 of the constitution.

    “The defendants were early in September 2015, invited and detained by EFCC and at no time were they found wanting when they were granted bail.

    “If granted bail, the defendants would not jump bail, nor commit any offence and would not tamper with police investigation, ” the lawyer  said.

    Lawan urged the court to grant them bail because the law presumes that they are innocent until proven guilty.

    The prosecuting counsel, Mr B. M.  Buhari, told the court that between December 10 and December 23, 2014, the defendants conspired to  launder money under Sections 18 (a) and 15, 2,(b) of the Money Laundering Prohibition Act.

    He said on the same day Adamu transferred N18 million to Oyengbo’s  First Bank Account 2024412016.

    Buhari also alleged that Adamu on December 23, 2014, did an illicit money transfer of N9.7 million to Onyago’s First Bank account, adding they later took possession of the money.

    The prosecutor said he would call six witnesses at the next sitting.

    Justice  J K Daggard  will rule on the bail request on February 7.

  • France convicts Equatorial Guinea vice president of money laundering

    France convicts Equatorial Guinea vice president of money laundering

    A French court on Friday convicted Equatorial Guinea’s Vice President Teodorin Obiang of money laundering and ordered the confiscation of his property in Paris.

    The Paris Correctional Court found that the property was bought with the proceeds of embezzlement and corruption in Equatorial Guinea.

    Obiang, 48, who is the eldest son of Equatorial Guinea’s President Teodoro Obiang, did not travel to France for the trial and was convicted in absentia.

    The confiscated property included a mansion on Avenue Foch in Paris, valued at 107 million Euros (127 million dollars) in 2012, and a collection of cars costing almost 7.5 million Euros.

    According to U.S. proceedings cited by the court, Obiang had an official salary of only 80,000 Euros.

    The court also sentenced him to three years imprisonment and a fine of 30 million Euros, both suspended.

    The court criticised the role of the Banque de France and a subsidiary of the Societe Generale bank in transferring Obiang’s funds to France.

    It also noted that “for many years” Paris prosecutors had considered action against Obiang to be either inopportune or legally impossible.

    In 2014 Obiang settled a corruption probe with U.S. authorities by agreeing to give up more assets worth over 30 million dollars.

    The elder Obiang, who has been in power since 1979, was re-elected in 2016 with 98 per cent of the vote after a constitutional reform allowed him to seek two more seven-year terms.

    However, the opposition accused the government of rigging the election.

  • Alleged money laundering: Ex-Transcorp chief acquitted

    The Court of Appeal in Abuja has discharged and acquitted a former Group Managing Director of Transcorp Plc Mr. Tom Iseghohi of money laundering charges.

    It set aside an October 20, 2014 decision of the Federal High Court in Abuja, which overruled his no-case submission.

    The appellate court dismissed the 32-count charge of money laundering filed against Iseghohi by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

    The anti-graft commission had arraigned Isoghohi, Transcorp’s former Company Secretary, Mohammed Buba and Deputy General Manager Mike Okoli in 2009.

    They were tried for fraud and money laundering in connection with the botched acquisition of the Nigeria Telecommunications (NITEL) by Transcorp.

    Trial began before Justice D.U Okorowo before it was transferred to Justice Evoh Chukwu.

    The first prosecution witness, Transcorp’s Company Secretary Helen Iwuchukwu, said under cross-examination that she was not in a position to how the accused persons allegedly transferred N15 billion to three companies.

    She added that she knew nothing about a company or any contract drawn for Global Employment Solutions Incorporated (GESI) as alleged in counts three and four of the charge.

    Five other witnesses testified for the prosecution, with the fourth witness, who was in charge of audit and finance, saying he did not trace any money to the accused persons.

    The prosecution could not secure the attendance of former Transcorp chairman Mrs Ndi Okereke Onyuike to testify despite several adjournments.

    The fifth prosecution witness, Aminueem Mohammed, an EFCC operative who investigated, said the commission did not receive any petition from Transcorp or NITEL against the defendants nor did they complain about missing funds.

    The defendants filed a no-case submission, urging the court to dismiss the charge because it established no prima facie case against them.

    Prosecution counsel, Sylvester Ogbedu, urged the court to hold that the prosecution had sufficiently proved its case against the accused persons.

    Justice Chukwu dismissed the no-case, holding that the accused persons had cases to answer, following which the defendants appealed.

    The Court of Appeal held that from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, there was no basis to refuse the no-case submission.

    The appellate court ruled that no evidence was adduced to establish the offence of money laundering against Iseghohi.

    It discharged and acquitted him of all 32 counts of laundering N15 billion.

  • Fani-Kayode challenges court’s jurisdiction to try him for ‘money laundering’

    Fani-Kayode challenges court’s jurisdiction to try him for ‘money laundering’

    …EFCC seeks to tender N30m cash receipts

     

    A former Minister of Aviation Chief Femi Fani-Kayode Wednesday asked the Federal High Court in Lagos to decline territorial jurisdiction in his trial for alleged money laundering.

    He prayed Justice Rilwan Aikawa to transfer the case to the court’s Abuja division where the alleged offence was committed.

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) re-arraigned Fani-Kayode and former finance minister (state) Senator Nenadi Usman for alleged N4.6billion fraud.

    They pleaded not guilty to the 17-count charge of money laundering.

    The defendants were first arraigned last June 28 before Justice Muslim Hassan, but the judge recused himself on March 16 after Fani-Kayode accused him of likely bias.

    Justice Hassan was head of legal department at EFCC before his appointment as a judge and had overseen a previous money laundering charge against Fani-Kayode.

    The judge returned the case file to the Chief Judge, Justice Ibrahim Auta, who re-assigned it to Justice Aikawa.

    Fani-Kayode’s lawyer Mr Norrison Quakers (SAN) said the court lacked the jurisdiction to try the former minister in Lagos.

    According to him, the facts of the case show that all the transactions which the former minister carried out as Director of Media and Publicity of the Goodluck Jonathan Campaign Organisation, for which he was charged, took place in Abuja.

    Besides, he said the defendant stays in Abuja and has another trial currently going in Abuja in another case.

    But, EFCC’s lawyer Rotimi Oyedepo urged the court to refuse the application as, according to him, the transaction instruments “were recovered in Lagos.”

    “The consequence of the alleged offence of money laundering is not limited to Abuja, but the entire federation. All the instruments of transaction were brought by Zenith Bank in Lagos.

    “The financial institutions used in the transactions have their head offices in Lagos,” Oyedepo said, adding that 13 of the prosecution’s 17 witnesses live in Lagos.

    Oyedepo said Fani-Kayode also raised the issue of transfer before Justice Hassan, yet when the file was returned to the Chief Judge, he re-assigned the case to another judge in Lagos rather than one in Abuja.

    He argued that the CJ had already exercised his discretion on where the case should be heard by re-assigning it to a judge in Lagos.

    Before the application for transfer was moved, Oyedepo had sought to tender receipts showing that Fani-Kayode made a cash payment of N30million to the first prosecution witness, a media consultant, Adewumi Idowu.

    The receipts acknowledge cash payments of N24million and N6million.

    “The documents were made by the witness. He identified them as the receipts he issued. They are extremely relevant to the facts in issue.

    “The receipts form the crux of counts 16 and 17 of the charge. We seek to tender the documents,” Oyedepo said.

    But, Quakers objected on the basis that the documents were not the original copies.

    He said the prosecution did not satisfy the requirements of Section 88 (c) of the Evidence Act which requires that there must be evidence of a thorough search for an original document before a duplicate can be accepted.

    Justice Aikawa adjourned till September 26 and 27 for ruling and continuation of trial.

     

  • UK okays Diezani’s trial for ‘money laundering’

    UK okays Diezani’s trial for ‘money laundering’

    Four others to face prosecution in June  

    EFCC takes more proof to London

    All is set for the trial of a former Minister of Petroleum Resources Mrs. Diezani Alison-Madueke, and four others  in London for alleged corrupt practices.

    The trial has been fixed for June and more evidence were hauled to the United Kingdom at the weekend.

    Part of the evidence are the proceedings of a Federal High Court in respect of the order of  final forfeiture of $153million allegedly traced to the ex-minister.

    It was also learnt that one of the suspects had been found at a hideout in London and placed under surveillance.

    There have been reports that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) was negotiating with Mrs. Alison-Madueke. The EFCC yesterday said it was not engaged in any secret negotiation with her.

    According to a source in the anti-graft agency, who spoke in confidence with our correspondent, the agency is set  for the trial.

    The source said: “The UK investigators have gone far on the allegations against Diezani. From the records made available, the ex-minister and four others will face trial as from June.

    “We have taken more evidence to the UK, including all court records relating to the final forfeiture of $153million. We have a huge pile of documents.”

    Responding to a question, the source added: “In fact, one of the suspects on the radar of investigators has been located in London and he is under surveillance.” He declined to name the suspect.

    On the reported negotiation with the former minister, the source said: “There is no basis to negotiate with the ex-Minister in view of the overwhelming evidence at our disposal. You should ask yourself what purpose the negotiation will serve.

    “The EFCC is set for the trial of the ex-minister at home and abroad. It is curious to be talking of a curious negotiation with someone who has a prima facie case to answer.

    “The ex-minister has forfeited $153m; we have had far-reaching investigation on her involvement in the $115m poll bribery scandal; we have seized some of her choice properties and she has consistently maintained that she is ready for trial. So, what is the basis for negotiation when we have a good case?”

    The National Crime Agency (NCA) on October 2, 2015 arrested Mrs. Alison-Madueke and four others  for alleged bribery and corruption and money laundering.

    The former minister, whose movement has been restricted to the UK, remains under investigation.

    The NCA found some of the ex-minister’s brothers and other business partners complicit in the money laundering allegation. She was arrested with her brothers.

    Messrs Abiye Agama and Somye Agama are Mrs Alison-Madueke siblings who operate some UK-based businesses hurriedly shut them after the NCA and the EFCC searchlight became intense.

    The two brothers are directors of Hadley Petroleum Solutions Limited, a company the authorities believe was  used for money laundering. The other directors are Ugonna Madueke and Abu Fari.

    The company was registered in June 2013 in Manchester, but was dissolved less than two years later last  February without filing any account.

    Abiye, 33, a point man of the firm, is a computer engineer and manager. He was a director in 11 other companies. He resigned from seven of them.

    According to EFCC records, some of the assets  linked with Mrs. Alison-Madueke are:

    • A block of six units service apartments on Awolowo Road, Ikoyi
    • Six units terrace flats in Yaba, Lagos Mainland
    • Twin four-bedroom duplexes in Lekki Phase I
    • Two duplexes on Banana Island
    • A duplex in Asokoro District, Abuja
    • A mini-estate in Mabushi, Abuja
    • A set of 12 terrace duplexes at Omaremi Street  in Port Harcourt
    • Large expanse of land at Oniru, Victoria Island in Lagos
    • A multi-billion Naira estate in Yenagoa
    • Two apartments in Dubai marked as J5 Emirates Hills (30million Dirham) and  E146 Emirates Hills valued at 44million Dirham
    • A hotel in Port Harcourt under investigation
    • $37.5m mansion on Banana Island in Lagos.

    But Alison-Madueke had disputed some of the slush funds and assets  attributed to her including the $153million.

    She said: “I have up till now chosen to maintain my silence and not to respond to inaccurate press reporting. However, given the level of deliberate inaccuracies, I am now forced to respond because it is clear that the EFCC is taking advantage of my silence to try me by media and to convict me in the eyes of the public on false reports.”

    “First and foremost, whilst the reasons for my being out of the country are public knowledge, the principle of fair hearing demands that I should have been notified of formal charges if truly there was a prima facie evidence or indictment against my person linking me with the said issue, so as to ensure that I had adequate legal representation. This was never done.

    “I wish to state that I cannot forfeit what was never mine. I do not know the basis on which the EFCC has chosen to say that I am the owner of these funds as no evidence was provided to me before the order was obtained and they have not in fact served me with the order or, any evidence since they obtained it.

    “I do not therefore, understand how the EFCC can in the same breath say that the monies in question are mine. If they had evidence that the monies were mine then they would not /should not, have used the procedure which applies only to funds of unknown ownership. If indeed they used this particular legal procedure because they did not know who owned the monies, then how can they now be falsely attributing the ownership to me.

    “Let me re-state categorically as I have always maintained, for the record, I have not and will never steal money from or defraud the Federal Government of Nigeria.

    “ I am willing to respond to any charges brought against me that follow duly laid down procedures.”

  • EFCC arraigns SAN, ex-minister for alleged money laundering

    EFCC arraigns SAN, ex-minister for alleged money laundering

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) yesterday arraigned a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN),  Mohammed Dele Belgore, at the Federal High Court in Lagos for alleged money laundering.

    He was arraigned with a former Minister of National Planning, Prof. Abubakar Suleiman, before Justice Mohammed Aikawa on a five-count charge.

    EFCC accused them of conspiring to directly take possession of N450 million, which they reasonably ought to have known formed part of the proceeds of an unlawful act.

    The commission said they committed the alleged offence on March 27, 2015, contrary to Section 18(a) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) (Amendment) Act, 2012.

    In the second count, EFCC said they “directly took possession of the sum”.

    In the third count, the defendants were accused of conspiring to make cash payment of N450 million, which “exceeded the amount authorised by law without going through financial institution”.

    The alleged offence, EFCC said, is contrary to Section 18(a) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) (Amendment) Act, 2012 and punishable under Section 16(2)(b) of the same Act.

    In the fourth and fifth counts, they were accused of making cash payment of N450 million to Sheriff Shagaya without going through a financial institution.

    The money, the prosecution said, exceeded the amount authorised by law and it was contrary to Section 1(a), Section 16(d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) (Amendment) Act, 2012 and punishable  under Section 16(2)(b) of the same Act.

    Belgore and Suleiman pleaded not guilty to the counts.

    The SAN’s lawyer, Mr. Ebun Shofunde (SAN), prayed the court to grant the first defendant bail on self-recognisance.

    “Given his antecedents, I am asking that bail be on self-recognisance because he has always made himself available while on administrative bail.

    “He has being a Senior Advocate of Nigeria since 2001. He is not a threat and not likely to jump bail given his standing. He has also being a lawyer since 1985,” he said.

    Suleiman’s lawyer Chief Bolaji Ayorinde (SAN) also prayed the court to grant the former minister bail on self-recognisance.

    EFCC’s lawyer Rotimi Oyedepo did not oppose the bail applications.

    He said: “We leave bail at your lordship’s discretion and pray that your lordship should impose conditions that will compel their attendance in court for trial,” he said.

    Ruling, Justice Aikawa granted the defendants bail on self-recognisance.

    “However, their international passports must be deposited with the Deputy Chief Registrar of this court and can only be released on court order,” the judge said.

    He adjourned till February 23 for trial.

  • How to curb money laundering, terror financing in West Africa, by experts

    How to curb money laundering, terror financing in West Africa, by experts

    Law experts and investigators have identified inefficient institutions, uncommitted leadership, poor financing, among others, as key factors aiding money laundering, terror financing and related crimes in West Africa.

    Chairman, Senate Committee on Anti-corruption and Financial Crimes, Senator Chukwudi Utazi, Director General, Inter-Governmental Action Against Money Laundering in West Africa (GIABA) Col. Adama Coulibaly, and Director, Nigeria Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU) Francis Usani said governments in the sub-region should be more committed to curbing such crimes.

    They said West African governments needed to exhibit the political will, strengthen available institutions by properly funding them and ensure conscientious application of extant laws, if the sub-region were to make a headway in the campaign to curb financial crimes.

    Utazi, Coulibaly and Usani spoke in Abuja on Tuesday at the opening of a five-day regional capacity building workshop on economic and financial crimes, organised for judges, prosecutors and investigators by GIABA.

    Utazi noted that the sub-region remains a low capacity region in the fight against money laundering and terrorists financing as a result of weak governance structure, poor institutional framework, inadequate laws, poorly conceived policies and unstable administration of justice.

    He urged stakeholders in the criminal justice sector to double their effort if the sub-continent were to be saved from the adverse effect of money laundering and related crimes.

    Utazi, who said the Nigerian legislature was on the verge of enacting more stringent laws in this regard, argued that the Judiciary holds the key to the success of every effort against all forms of criminality in any society.

    “Investigation and prosecution must not work at cross-purposes with the administration of justice. And judges must have the independence to evaluate the works on investigators and prosecutors, and make pronouncements in accordance with the law.

    “They (judges) should work without any other arm of government breathing down their neck in an intimidating manner or subtly or directly, trying to control the outcome of their evaluations,” Utazi said.

    Coulibaly said GIABA’s experience in member states showed that effective implementation of its recommendations and existing anti-money laundering laws is hampered by a lack of strong political commitment to prosecute privileged persons involved in economic and financial crimes.

    He identified other hindrances as “obsolete legislation, lack of real capacity to effectively investigate and prosecute economic and financial crimes like corruption.”

    Coulibaly further identified other challenges as political interference, rivalry among agencies involved in the fight, low level of cooperation among institutions in member states and inadequate financing.

    He said the workshop was part of GIABA’s measure to enhance capacity of judges, prosecutors and investigators in the sub-region.

    Usani, who is also GIABA’s national correspondent for Nigeria, said the country was more committed than before, to ensure success of the group’s ideals.

    He urged participants to ensure application of the expertise and knowledge acquired in the training.