E- News
Entertainment News Hub
USD USD 1.00 EUR EUR 0.86
USD USD 1.00 GBP GBP 0.75
USD USD 1.00 JPY JPY 157.76
USD USD 1.00 CAD CAD 1.36
USD USD 1.00 AUD AUD 1.42
USD USD 1.00 CHF CHF 0.78
USD USD 1.00 CNY CNY 6.92
USD USD 1.00 INR INR 91.92
USD USD 1.00 NGN NGN 1,386.77
USD USD 1.00 EUR EUR 0.86
USD USD 1.00 GBP GBP 0.75
USD USD 1.00 JPY JPY 157.76
USD USD 1.00 CAD CAD 1.36
USD USD 1.00 AUD AUD 1.42
USD USD 1.00 CHF CHF 0.78
USD USD 1.00 CNY CNY 6.92
USD USD 1.00 INR INR 91.92
USD USD 1.00 NGN NGN 1,386.77



ESSENTIAL NEWS

Breaking News • Analysis • Opinion
LATEST EDITION

METRO

Court Acquits Two Businessmen As Efcc Fails To Prove N2.7bn Laundering Case
Photo: Staff Photographer

COURT ACQUITS TWO BUSINESSMEN AS EFCC FAILS TO PROVE N2.7BN LAUNDERING CASE

2 readers
shares
reactions
T

The Lagos State High Court sitting in Ikeja has acquitted two businessmen who were facing trial over an alleged N2.7 billion money laundering case instituted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

Justice A. Okunuga discharged and acquitted the defendants, Finami Ayodele and Michael Effiong Udoiyang, after ruling that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against them.

The duo had been arraigned alongside Finami Automobile Ventures and Afolabi Olushola Sunday, popularly known as ‘Asiwaju,’ who remains at large.

The EFCC had filed a three-count charge against the defendants, bordering on conspiracy, stealing, and money laundering. The commission alleged that the offences were committed in Lagos between September 21 and October 4, 2021.

According to the prosecution, the defendants allegedly conspired to assist the fourth defendant, Afolabi, in converting N2.7 billion belonging to Fidelity Bank, knowing that the funds were proceeds of unlawful activities.

The charges were said to contravene Sections 287 and 332 of the Criminal Law of Lagos State, 2015. However, the defendants pleaded not guilty to all allegations.

In delivering judgment, Justice Okunuga ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt.

The court identified the central issue as whether the prosecution had successfully proven the offences of conspiracy to steal and money laundering against the defendants.

While examining the matter, the judge first considered whether Finami Automobile Ventures, listed as the third defendant, was properly brought before the court.

Justice Okunuga ruled that the entity was not registered as a limited liability company and therefore lacked the legal capacity required to sue or be sued.

The court further observed that the EFCC investigator who testified as the second prosecution witness admitted under cross-examination that the defendants’ accounts were identified through an analysis of beneficiary accounts rather than direct transfer evidence.

According to the court, the prosecution failed to produce documentary proof linking the alleged N2.7 billion directly to the defendants’ accounts.

Justice Okunuga also noted that the witness could not specify the exact amounts allegedly received by each defendant or provide statements of account showing the movement of the funds into their accounts.

Relying on judicial precedents, including Famuyiwa v. State and John v. State, the court held that the prosecution did not meet the evidentiary threshold required for conviction.

“In view of these findings, I hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the offence of money laundering beyond reasonable doubt against the first and second defendants,” the judge ruled.

Consequently, the court found the two businessmen not guilty and discharged and acquitted them of the charges.

During the trial, the prosecution presented two witnesses: Ugochukwu Olisakwe of Fidelity Bank and Yazid Ahmad Bawa, an investigator with the EFCC.

After the prosecution closed its case, counsel to the first defendant, Nkereuwem Abraham, a former EFCC prosecutor, and counsel to the second defendant, Patience Udo, filed a no-case submission.

Although the court initially dismissed the application, the defence later opted not to call any witnesses and instead relied on the prosecution’s evidence.

The court subsequently directed both parties to file their final written addresses before delivering its judgment.

"This represents a significant development in our ongoing coverage of current events."
— Editorial Board

READER ENGAGEMENT

SHARE THIS STORY

MORE FROM THIS EDITION

Additional articles loading...