![NG-[A_BA[COMP_TABL_ALLC]:TABLETS_160x600](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_s93pIHULZBKY1wsX-Tj79K6HRiFGrT_3zNFh0Ly_zAmupwswLQ8Ip7mIJjvxWTkPgP7FyBSf4Ed5rWOExX_Pq23veqdO1RV7Tl77OGRBMIzzhM8XTIhwcuoD7NN4fDUOSP0Jp3JbmJh8400txJFEMmwG3tFKlD9eNl4v2geLg6EhbEsFqvBA=s0-d)
Following a no case submission application filed by former minister of aviation, Femi Fani-Kayode, a Federal High Court Lagos, on Monday, acquitted him of 38 out of 40 counts of money laundering charges. Fani-Kayode was charged on an amended 40-count charge, bordering on the alleged offence. He is being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia discharged and acquitted the accused of the 38 counts, while ruling on a no case submission filed by the defence, on behalf of the accused. The court, in its judgment, partially upheld the no case submission of the defence, holding that it succeeds in part; she then ordered that the accused enters a defence in respect of counts 25 and 26.
She held that from the wordings of the charge, it was clear that they were basically set out in two formats, with counts one to 33 of the same format, while other counts of different formats. “For ease of reference, I shall set out counts one and 33 only, being prototype of the two species of the counts; the distinction, however, is for the basis of convenience. In one format, the accused was alleged to have paid the amount into his own account, while in the other he was alleged to have paid it into the account of a third party. I find that there was an acceptance of cash payment of an amount exceeding N500,000 by the applicant which was not done through a financial institution, and also, a payment at the behest of the applicant.
“This distinction pales into insignificance when one considers the elements of each count. The first element would have been satisfied if the prosecution led evidence to show that the cash sum exceeding the statutory threshold was handed to a specified third party which was further transmitted to a financial system. The second element is discharged where the prosecution leads evidence to show that the said transmission was at the behest of the applicant. It will be immaterial in my view whether the monies were paid into the account of the accused or a third party. Only PW4 and PW5 gave evidence about payment; the testimony of PW5 in particular was in respect of counts 21, 23 and 31, and on the application of prosecution, PW5 was declared a hostile witness.”
0 comments:
Post a Comment