ALLEGED N3.6BN MONEY LAUNDERING: EFCC APPEALS OMATSULI, FIRMS' ACQUITTAL

Read Time:3 Minute, 48 Second

By ‘Sefiu Ajape

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, challenging the acquittal of a former Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) Executive Director, Engr. Touyo Omatsuli, and three others over an alleged N3.645 billion money laundering scheme.

Also listed as respondents in the appeal are Don Parker Properties Limited, Francis Momoh, and Building Associates Limited.

The EFCC is represented by a legal team led by E.E. Iheanacho, SAN, alongside Bilikisu Bala Buhari, Esq., Emenike Mgbenmele, Esq., O.S. Ujam, Esq., Famen Anum, Esq., M.A. Babatunde, Esq., and Lydia Ebenezer, Esq.

The appeal follows a judgment of the Federal High Court in Lagos, presided over by Justice Daniel Osiagor, which discharged and acquitted the defendants on all 46 counts in an amended charge bordering on money laundering, conspiracy, and failure to comply with statutory reporting obligations.

In its Notice of Appeal, the EFCC argued that the trial court erred in law and failed to properly evaluate the evidence presented during the trial, including testimonies from 16 witnesses and several documentary exhibits.

The Commission maintained that the lower court disregarded binding decisions of the Court of Appeal in earlier interlocutory rulings from the same case, particularly on the issue of no-case submission, where the appellate court had held that a prima facie case existed against the defendants.

According to the EFCC, the trial judge wrongly held that there was no evidence linking the respondents to the alleged offences, despite prior appellate findings affirming the strength of the prosecution’s case.

The anti-graft agency further argued that the trial court mischaracterised the nature of the funds traced to the first respondent, insisting that the N3.645 billion paid by a contractor identified as PW4 was unlawful gratification rather than legitimate transactions.

It stated that the funds were paid as “appreciation” to members of the NDDC board and were subsequently laundered through proxies and corporate entities.

According to the Commission, the money was routed through Building Associates Limited and other accounts before being used to acquire high-value properties, thereby disguising its origin.

Challenging the judgment, the EFCC described the transactions as part of a coordinated laundering scheme involving the respondents.

It alleged that the first respondent nominated accounts for the receipt of the funds, while the third and fourth respondents facilitated transfers and conversions.

The Commission added that the funds were used to acquire properties in the names of corporate entities, with some transactions converted into foreign currency to conceal their source.

It further claimed that the respondents engaged in cover-up actions after investigations began, including restructuring company ownership, relinquishing shares, and creating backdated documents to justify the transactions.

The EFCC also faulted the trial court for relying heavily on selected portions of cross-examination while ignoring the broader scope of the prosecution’s case.

It argued that there were no material contradictions in the testimonies of key witnesses, including PW1 and PW4, noting that their evidence was supported by documentary exhibits.

The Commission maintained that the lower court failed to properly interpret anti-corruption laws, including provisions of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act and the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act, which prohibit public officers from receiving benefits linked to official duties.

On criminal intent, the EFCC argued that the trial court adopted an unduly narrow approach by insisting on direct proof of knowledge.

It maintained that under the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, knowledge can be inferred from surrounding circumstances and patterns of conduct.

According to the Commission, evidence of unusual financial flows, absence of legitimate business relationships, and subsequent concealment efforts showed that the respondents knew or ought to have known that the funds were proceeds of unlawful activity.

The EFCC also challenged the trial court’s finding that conspiracy was not proved, arguing that the law does not require direct evidence of agreement.

It submitted that the coordinated actions of the respondents, as revealed through witness testimonies and financial records, were sufficient to establish a common unlawful design.

The Commission further insisted that the companies involved qualified as Designated Non-Financial Institutions under the Money Laundering Act and were therefore required to report suspicious transactions, obligations it said were breached.

The EFCC is asking the Court of Appeal to set aside the judgment of the Federal High Court in its entirety, allow the appeal, and enter a conviction against the respondents.

It also urged the appellate court to make any further orders deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the case.