The Court of Appeal sitting in Lagos has upheld the judgment of a State High Court which sentenced two officials of Keystone Bank, Anayo Nwosu and Olajide Oshodi, to five years imprisonment over an N855m fraud.
Justice Folasade Ojo who delivered the unanimous judgment on behalf of the panel, held that the separate appeals filed by Nwosu and Oshodi against their conviction by Justice Kudirat Jose was lacking in merit.
Justice Olukayode Bada and Justice Paul Bassi are the two other Justices on the panel.
In the judgment, the appellate court resolved the three issues formulated for determination in favour of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
On December 9, 2019, Justice Jose convicted and sentenced Nwosu and Oshodi on an amended 15-count charge of conspiracy and obtaining money by false pretense brought against them by the EFCC.
The judge sentenced them to 5 years imprisonment, each on counts 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10 and 13 of stealing.
Justice Jose had also convicted an Indian businessman, Ashok Israni, his company NULEC Industries Limited, and Keystone Bank Limited, in her judgment.
The company and the bank were ordered to pay a fine of N20 million to the Federal Government on counts one, 10, and 13.
Dissatisfied with the lower court’s verdict, the duo of Nwosu & Oshodi approached the appeal court arguing that their right to a fair hearing was breached because a further amended charge was introduced after the close of evidence.
They also argued that the lower Court went outside its jurisdiction by exceeding the maximum punishment prescribed by Section 390 of the Lagos State Criminal Code Law, Cap. 17, Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State, under which they were charged.
The appellants also contended that the entire transactions leading to their conviction were purely civil and between third parties.
But the EFCC, through its lawyer, Rotimi Jacobs, argued that the appellants did not challenge the Further Amended Charge during the trial and that the Criminal Code Law of Lagos State permits the court to sentence a convict up to 5 years imprisonment if the thing stolen is worth N1,000.
In her judgment, Justice Ojo held that the tríal court complied with the procedure laid down by law to be followed when a charge is amended and that there is no merit in the appellants’ argument that the amendment to the charge breached their right to a fair hearing.
The Justice also held that the amount involved in the charge is more than one thousand naira and that it contained criminal allegations of “stealing by conversion, publishing of false statement, etc., which are offences clearly defined under the Criminal Code Law of Lagos State”.
She said, “I have carefully examined the appeal record, and I agree with the lower court that the ingredients of counts 1 and 3 of the Amended Information were established by the first Respondent (EFCC).
“It is not in doubt that the Appellants introduced the private placement of the shares of the fourth Respondent (Keystone Bank) to the 11th prosecution witness (Complainant), which made him part with a considerable sum of money.
“As rightly submitted by the first respondent, the fourth respondent was to retain the proceeds realised through the private placement into an interest-yielding account before the allotment of the shares, and the shares certificate must be sent to the successful applicant within 15 working days from the date of allotment, and unsuccessful applicants were to get their money returned to them within ten working days of the date of allotment.
“The appellants received the cheque of N395 million from the complainant in his office, where the instruction for issuing bank drafts in the sum of N285 million and N110 million was initiated by him.
“The draft of N285 million was paid into the current account of the fourth respondent on 14th July 2008. On 15th July 2008, the fourth Respondent paid the sum of N19,950,000 to Drillcom Investment W/A Ltd. The appellants benefitted from this commission. The ingredients of counts 1 and 3 were established before the lower Court, and I so hold.
“I firmly believe that the appellants squarely come within the definition of a promoter as contemplated under Section 436(b) of the Criminal Code Law, and I so hold.
“The appellants induced PW11 (Complainant) into this transaction, over which their Bank commended them. I resolved this issue against the Appellants as the lower Court was correct to have convicted and sentenced the Appellants on Counts 10 & 13 of the Amended Information.
“Having resolved all the three issues in this appeal against the Appellants, the inevitable coňclusion is that the appeal lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. The instant appeal is dismissed for lack of merit. The Judgment of the High Court of Lagos State, Ikeja Judicial Division in SUIT NO. ID/112C/2012 is at this moment affirmed,” Justice Ojo held.
Credit: Channels Television
