[ad_1]
Mr. Kwame Akuffo, counsel for the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the defunct gold dealership firm, Menzgold, on Tuesday challenged several charges levelled against his client by state prosecutors when the case was called for hearing.
Nana Appiah Mensah, popularly known as NAM 1, has pleaded not guilty to all 39 counts of offences.
The AG slapped NAM 1 with charges including money laundering abetment, defrauding by false pretences, carrying on deposit-taking business without the requisite license, unlawful deposit-taking, and money laundering.
In court on Thursday, Nana Appiah Mensah’s lawyer indicated that the prosecution’s claim that there was a name change to circumvent the Bank of Ghana (BoG), is unfounded. The defence argued that it was, in fact, the BoG itself that advised the company to change its name from “MenzBank” to “Menzbanc.”
He emphasised that if they (the defence) fail to prove this point, the court should take punitive action against them.
The defence further revealed that during meetings with the Bank of Ghana, it was the central bank that recommended the establishment of a third accused company, which recommendation aimed to ensure that the gold marketing business remained distinct from other aspects of the company’s operations.
The defence also noted that BoG officials had visited the smelting company to verify the presence of appropriate machinery and equipment. They argued that the company had a unique business model that was not anticipated by the law, making it difficult to classify violations accurately. Notably, the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) had closed down the accused person’s business, citing a lack of licensing. However, the defence highlighted what it said was a fundamental flaw in the prosecution’s case, that none of the charges made reference to a SEC violation.
According to the defence, SEC officials had visited the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) regarding the accused person but asserted that they had no jurisdiction over the operations of the CEO’s businesses. This discrepancy highlighted a lack of consensus even within the authorities.
The defence lawyer also drew attention to the prosecution’s assertion that the Bank of Ghana Act had been violated, yet there was no mention of the BoG’s role in closing down the business.
They contended that the BoG had advised the accused person to continue the business operations as before.
Furthermore, the defence pointed out that the Bank of Ghana had a representative on the SEC board, adding to the confusion surrounding the actions and interactions between the SEC and BoG.
Meanwhile, Nana Appiah Mensah has been granted bail to the tune of GH¢500 million with four sureties. The accused has also been directed to deposit his passport at the court registry as part of the bail conditions. He’s also been directed to visit the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) headquarters every Thursday.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
[ad_2]
Source link