Alleged $12m fraud: My BDC company registered with CAC, EFCC witness tells Court

The first Prosecution Witness (PW1) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Suleiman Ciroma in the ongoing trial of Halima Buba, the Managing Director, SunTrust Bank, and her co-defendant told Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday that, his company, Funnacle BDC Ltd, was duly registered with Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC).

Ciroma who spoke while being cross-examined by 1st defendant (Buba)’s counsel, Johnson Usman, SAN, admitted that, as at 2021, he was a Bureau De Change (BDC) operator.

ALSO READ: Court orders forfeiture of Lagos hotel, others linked to drug cartel

He said Buba and her co-defendant, Innocent Mbagwu, the Executive Director/Chief Compliance Officer of the bank, are not directors in his company.

Ciroma, who had earlier told the court that he was no longer in the business of BDC, admitted that Funnacle BDC Ltd had not been wound up in accordance with the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA).

He said he met Aisha Achimugu in 2021 at SunTrust Bank and admitted that, shortly after he met Achimugu in 2021, she (Achimugu) gave him the sum of 1.8 million US dollars for swapping into naira and credited her in naira equivalent.

He said the money was given to him in tranches, confirming that he was not at the Lagos branch of SunTrust Bank on March 10, March 13, March 14, March 20, and March 24, and also not at the Abuja branch of SunTrust Bank on March 10.

He told the court that he was invited by the EFCC between April 11 or April 12 in respect of the transactions and that he was released same day.

The witness said he made about two to three extra-judicial statements at the anti-graft agency’s office and admitted that the said statements were signed by him and that the statements formed part of the charge before the court.

However, when Usman sought to take Ciroma on the charge, EFCC’s lawyer, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, objected.

Usman, therefore, sought to tender the certified true copy (CTC) of the charge before Justice Nwite, and Oyedepo opposed the move.

The commission’s lawyer submitted that the officer that could certify the document was the EFCC officer in whose custody the primary evidence can be seen and inspected upon the payment of the prescribed fee.

“I submit that, the document, having been certified by EFCC or tendered from the Bar, is inadmissible,” he said.

The lawyer, who said Pages 32 to 83 are extra judicial statements of the defendants volunteered to the EFCC as well as other witnesses called in the proceedings, said only the EFCC can certify them.

He argued that extra-judicial statements of various witnesses can only be tendered upon the satisfaction of the condition enunciated by Section 232 of the Evidence Act.

“I will not be asking the court to reject the document but I urge your lordship to decline the admissibility,” he said.

Usman, however, disagreed with Oyedepo’s submission and argued that cases cited by the EFCC lawyer were not applicable in the instant case as the facts and circumstances are different.

“The document sought to be tendered was fully paid by the applicant with a receipt fully endorsed by the Federal High Court.

Besides, he said Section 104(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended) is in line with their argument.

“The officer in custody of these documents are registrar of Federal High Court and payment made and receipt endorsed. Therefore, we have fully complied,” he said.

According to him, “My learned brother has systematically made a few attempts to divide the document into parts, but was not successful.

“Reasons being that what is sought to be tendered is a charge filed by them, and not a charge sheet. He attempted to segmentise written statements, documents from SunTrust Bank, documents from Immigration, etc.

“The law is settled upon which there is no radical departure that once a document is admissible, its attachment automatically becomes admissible in law,” he said, citing the apex court’s previous case.

The senior lawyer argued that once a document had been admitted as an exhibit, other documents attached to it would form part of the exhibit.

“It is not a requirement of the law that every page must be certified in line with Section 104. What we seek to tender, the original copy, is before my lord, and what we seek to tender is a CTC

“Have we run afoul of the law in tendering this charge? The answer is no. That is why the prosecution is saying don’t reject and don’t admit,” he said, accusing the prosecution of sitting on the fence in their argument, which he said is a strange legal principle.

Usman prayed the court to dismiss EFCC’s argument.

Justice Nwite adjourned the matter until October 13, 16, and 17 for ruling and continuation of the trial.

It would be recalled that Buba and her co-defendant, Innocent Mbagwu, the Executive Director/Chief Compliance Officer of SunTrust Bank, are being prosecuted on money laundering offences to the tune of $12 million.

The duo, in a six-count charge, was alleged to have aided high-value cash transactions without routing them through a financial institution.

The offence is said to be contrary to Section 21(a), 2(1), and 9(1)(d) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, and punishable under Section 19(2)(b) of the same Act.

The defendants were, on June 13, arraigned by the anti-graft agency, and they, however, pleaded not guilty to the counts, and were admitted to a N100 million bail with one surety, each in like sum.