N855m Fraud: Appeal Court Affirms 5-year Conviction Of Bankers

The Court of Appeal in Lagos has affirmed the judgement of a Lagos State High Court, which sentenced two officials of Keystone Bank, Anayo Nwosu and Olajide Oshodi, to five years imprisonment over an N855 million fraud.
The Appeal Court, in a unanimous judgment, delivered by Justice Folasade Ayodeji Ojo, held that the separate appeals filed by Nwosu and Oshodi against their conviction by Justice Kudirat Jose are lacking in merit.

In the judgment agreed with by the panel’s two other justices, Justice Olukayode Bada and Justice Paul Bassi, the appellate court resolved the three issues formulated for determination in favour of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
Justice Jose had on December 9, 2019, jailed Nwosu and Oshodi on an amended 15-count charge of conspiracy and obtaining money by false pretence brought against them by the EFCC.
The Judge had sentenced them to five 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.

But dissatisfied with the lower court’s verdict, the duo had approached the upper court arguing that their right to a fair hearing was breached because the Further Amended Charge was introduced after the close of evidence.

The appellants also contended that the entire transactions leading to their conviction were purely civil and between third parties different from him.
But the EFCC, through its lawyer, Rotimi Jacobs, argued that 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.