Re: Innoson vs GT Bank: How Industrialist Defrauded Bank And Bullied The EFCC, The Police And Courts With his Political Connections

34 min read 6,686 words 0 views

After the immediate release of the illegal and unlawful arrest
of Chief Dr Innocent Chukwuma OFR popularly known as Innoson by the
Economic and Financial Crimes Commission EFCC on December 20, 2017,
there have been two major publications on the Innoson vs GTB saga.
One was written by one James Osaremen and published by Premium
Times on Dec 20th 2017 with the caption- Innoson EFCC arrest and
the GTB Loan: The facts behind the saga. The other was published by
Sahara Reporters on Dec 23rd 2017 with the caption- Innoson vs GT
Bank: How Industrialist Defrauded Bank And Bullied The EFCC, The
Police And Courts With his Political Connections.

The facts stated in these two publications are filled with
half-truths, fabrications, false allegations and mis-representation
of facts. At first we wanted to ignore and wait for the outcome of
the supposed investigation by the EFCC on GTB complaint on Innoson.
But in this social media era where silence may be seen as an
admission of guilty as charged, we have deem it fit to present with
factual evidence the true story on all the allegations raised on
the two publications.

INTRODUCTION

Under letter of credit transaction, in international trade,
bills of ladings are consigned to Banks not because the Banks –
consignees – are the owners of the goods but rather that ensures
that the seller is paid and the buyer receives the goods.

Mere consignment or endorsement of a bill of lading does not
confer title in the goods covered by the bill of lading to either
the consignee or the endorsee. Where consignment or endorsement of
a bill of lading is intended as a security for loan, consignment or
endorsement in such circumstance, does not transfer title in the
goods to the consignee or the endorsee: Sewell v. Burdick (1884) 10
APP CAS 74; J.F. Wilson: Carriage of Goods by Sea, 5th Edition,
page 135, paragraph c.

NOTE: All Innoson’s letter of credit transactions, through GTB,
where confirmed LCs. In letter of credit transactions (LC),
particularly but not exclusively confirmed LC, the term is cash
against documents. Shipping documents are not released by the
advising/correspondent Bank to the Issuing Bank until the Issuing
Bank pays for the goods. At all material times, Innoson paid 25% of
every LC value before it was opened.

GTB’s LOAN TO INNOSON AND THE SECURITY
GTB never granted any loan of N2.4Billion to Innoson in 2009 but
rather a loan of N500Million through its offer letter of 17th
December, 2009. The last loan transaction between GTB and Innoson
was in 2011. Thus, through its letter of 2nd March, 2011 GTB
offered a loan of N1.7Billion to Innoson. The principle terms and
security for this loan were: Legal/Tripartite Legal Mortgage over
Innoson’s properties valued at N1.1Billion in 2010 by GTB appointed
valuers; 25% equity contribution by Innoson on each letter of
credit (LC) transaction; and shipping documents worth N500Million
shall be released at any point in time to Innoson.

From the offer letter of 2nd March, 2011 the following are
clear:

a. Innoson contributed 25% of the N1.7Billion. By this Innoson
contributed N425Million and GTB N1Billion, 285Million;
b. the N1Billion, 285Million which GTB lent to Innoson was secured
with Innoson’s properties valued at N1.1Billion in 2010 and by
necessary calculation in 2011 the value of the properties were
valued at over N1.3Billion.

GTB’S FRAUD
As could be seen from the introduction above:

a. the shipping documents referred to in the offer letter of 2nd
March, 2011 are at best, security for the loan and as such did not
transfer title to any good covered by it to GTB. Therefore, GTB is
not the owner of the goods evidenced by them and title in the goods
did not pass to it.

b. since in a letter of credit transactions, shipping documents
– bill of lading – cannot be released except cash (the price of the
goods) is paid, for every bill of lading consigned to GTB, Innoson
paid 25% of its value before it is released to GTB.

The statement by James Osaremen and Sahara Reporters that the
goods belong to GTB shows that from the beginning GTB was out to
defraud Innoson and this is demonstrated thus:

a. 25% of the price of all the goods were paid for by Innoson
and if upon consignment the goods belong to GTB it means that GTB
had taken what Innoson paid in respect of the goods. What a
cheat!!;

b. Innoson gave the title documents of its properties worthing
over N1.4Billion to GTB as security and denied itself the use of
it.

Therefore, from the loan transaction GTB got the following:

Innoson’s properties
Innoson’s N425Million contribution;
and the goods.

EFCC’s INVESTIGATION IN 2011 AND THE
OUTCOME
In September 2011, GTB through a letter to EFCC, alleged that
Innoson defrauded it about N1.4Billion out of a loan transaction it
had with it. EFCC investigated the allegation and discovered the
following:

GTB stole N560Million from Innoson’s current account with it –
though Innoson maintained that GTB stole N780Million from its
account;

Innoson collected all the Bills of Lading consigned to GTB with
the consent of GTB;

before collection, Innoson wrote letters to GTB asking it to
endorse the bill of ladings to it and to pay the duties necessary
for clearing the goods from the seaport;

GTB paid Customs duties for all the bill of ladings Innoson used
to clear the goods, including the ones GTB claimed were forged or
that the signatures of its staff thereon were forged;

GTB released all the Bill of Ladings including the one in issue
to Innoson and that Innoson signed for each of the bill of Ladings
in a register kept by GTB – GTB released the Bill of Lading after
Innoson signed the register;

GTB failed to produce the register claiming that it was
destroyed by the fire that razed its office;

after clearing each good including the ones evidenced by the
bill of lading in issue, Innoson returned the foreign exchange
control copies to GTB and GTB transmitted them to Central Bank of
Nigeria (CBN);

a GTB staff – Mr. Okechukwu Okeke – who transacted with
Innoson’s staff gave evidence that he released the bill of ladings
in issue to Innoson’s staff;

the shipping company – Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd. – whose ship
carried the goods confirmed that the bill of ladings – including
the ones in issue – were not forged and that none of GTB’s staff’s
signatures endorsed thereon was forged.

Consequently, through its letter of 20th September, 2012 (copy
enclosed) EFCC informed Innoson that “further to our investigation
and resolve that your account be reconciled from inception, the
final outcome of the Commission’s reconciliation of the account” is
that you are indebted to GTB in this matter, and therein, EFCC
requested Innoson to pay about N1Billion to GTB. EFCC never stated
in that letter that Innoson forged any shipping document or GTB’s
staff’s signatures thereon to clear the goods evidenced by the bill
of ladings.

Innoson rejected and declined EFCC’s demand contained in its
letter of 20th September, 2012 on the ground that GTB shall pay it
interest on the N560Million at 22% being the rate at which GTB lent
it money. This resulted in a stalemate and Innoson headed to the
court.

JUDGEMENTS AGAINST GUARANTY TRUST BANK
(GTB)
Consequently, Innoson commenced Suit No: FHC/AWK/CS/139/2012
against GTB at the Federal High Court, Akwa Division, in respect of
the money GTB stole from its account claiming 22% interest thereon
from the date GTB started the stealing. In this suit, GTB was
represented by an eminent Senior Advocate of Nigeria. However, on
16th May, 2013 the trial Court rendered judgment in the sum of
N4.7Billion in favour of Innoson against GTB.

GTB appealed against the judgment to the Court of Appeal, Enugu
Division, vide Appeal No: CA/I/288/2013. In this appeal, on 9th
December, 2013 the Court of Appeal ordered GTB to pay the judgment
debt which then stood at about N6 Billion into an interest yielding
account. (The Court of Appeal’s order is enclosed.)

Again, on the 29th July, 2011 in Suit No: FHC/L/CS/603/2006, the
Federal High Court, Ibadan Division, ordered GTB – by way of
Garnishee order absolute – to pay over N2 Billion to Innoson.
Rather than pay to Innoson, GTB appealed to the Court of Appeal,
Ibadan Division, vis – Appeal No: CA/I/258/2011. However, in a
unanimous decision on 6th February, 2014, the Court of Appeal
dismissed the appeal and ordered GTB to pay the ordered sum of over
N2 Billion to Innoson.

Rather than pay the judgment debt to Innoson, GTB deposed in
paragraphs 3 – 7 of an affidavit it filed on 12th December, 2014 at
the Court of Appeal (copy enclosed) that if it pays the judgment
debt, it will collapse and be out of business.

Also, interestingly, GTB commenced Suit No: FHC/L/CS/1119/2014
against Innoson at the Federal High Court, Lagos Division and
thereat, through an ex parte order, frozen Innoson’s account in 18
Banks in Nigeria for 9 months. However, in a considered judgment
delivered on 10th June, 2015 the learned trial Judge dismissed the
suit and set aside the ex parte order.

INNOSON’S PENDING SUITS
SUIT NO: FHC/ABJ/CS/68/2014 – During the police investigation of
GTB’s allegation, Innoson discovered that GTB was influencing the
investigation through one Mrs Onabolu. Thus, in paragraph 12(a)-(b)
of the statement of claim, Innoson averred that:

during the currency of the handwriting/signature
analysis/Forensic test, the Bank through its Solicitor Mrs. Onabolu
in conjunction with the 3rd Defendant were in constant
communication and association with the unit or the party or person
or group of persons particularly but not exclusive to Retired DSP
Ayo who conducted the investigation or forensic test or handwriting
analysis; and the 1st – 3rd Defendants influenced the test/analysis
and its expected outcome or result;

at the trial, the Plaintiffs will rely on the call logs of
calls/conversation messages between Mrs. Onabolu, the 3rd Defendant
and Retired DSP Ayo through their various mobile telephone numbers
which include but not limited to 08027825760, 08037018448,
08033015977, 08129131499.”

To ensure that justice is done, Innoson prayed in this suit that
the court orders that the forensic examination of the specimen
signatures of the persons involved be conducted by an independent
body like FBI or Scotland Yard. Hence, in paragraph 4 of the writ
of summons (copy enclosed) Innoson claimed thus:

“An order of mandatory injunction mandating the 1st – 3rd
Defendants either by themselves, agents, privies, servants,
affiliates to send the various specimen signatures they collected
from parties with the one in issue to either FBI or Scotland Yard
for forensic analysis/test.”

Interestingly, Innoson’s above claim which is not offensive was
stoutly opposed by the GTB and the police.

CHARGE NO: FHC/L/565/2015 – This Charge was commenced in
December, 2015 in this present regime and not in Goodluck
Jonathan’s regime as GTB and Sahara Reporters falsely stated. At
the investigating stage of the GTB’s allegations which led to this
Charge, the then Inspector General of Police – MD Abubakar – was
very angry and disappointed when he discovered that: there was a
register kept by GTB in which Innoson’s staff signed for and
collected all the Bills of Ladings including the ones in dispute
and that GTB claimed it could not produce the register because it
was destroyed by fire; a GTB staff – Mr Okechukwu Okeke – who dealt
with Innoson’s staff in respect of the Bill of Ladings gave
evidence to the police that he gave Innoson’s staff the Bill of
Ladings in issue and that they signed for them in the GTB’s
register. Consequently, the then IGP ordered that the case be
closed and subsequently warned its men and GTB and concomitantly
apologised to Innoson for the embarrassment his men caused him. He
also ordered for a reinvestigation.

However, given the retirement of MD Abubakar – the then IGP –
and change of guard, GTB, characteristically – convinced police
officers who were not aware of the outcome of the investigation to
file Charge No: FHC/L/565C/2015. Nonetheless, when the police
became aware of the real and true facts and the directive of the
then IGP – MD Abubakar –, it withdrew the Charge, through its
notice of withdrawal dated 17th February, 2016 duly filed at the
Federal High Court Registry (copy enclosed) and in the notice
stated that the police needed “to further investigate the
case”.

On being aware of this withdrawal, again, GTB characteristically
got the then Director of Public Prosecution of the Federal Republic
of Nigeria – Mr Diri – to claim to have taken over the Charge/case
using the name of the Attorney General of the Federation.
Interestingly, Mr Diri’s involvement in this matter and his
complicities therein led to his removal as the Director of Public
Prosecution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

INNOSON’S WITHDRAWAL OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS CASE
AGAINST EFCC
On 20th December, 2017, Innoson filed Suit No: FHC/L/CS/1962/2017
at the Federal High Court, Lagos Division against EFCC and five
others to enforce his fundamental human rights. Innoson commenced
the application with a motion ex parte. The application was
accompanied with an affidavit of urgency. As a result, Innoson’s
lawyers enquired from the court’s registry when the case will be
assigned and were asked to check the next day being 21st December,
2017. They did and on 21st December, 2017 were further asked to
check on 22nd December, 2017 and also, they heeded to the
directive.

Neither Innoson’s lawyers nor the bailiff of the court served
GTB with the motion ex parte or any of the process in this suit.
Moreover, the suit was commenced by a motion ex parte and by the
rules and practice it is to be and shall be kept secret; and other
party(ies) – Respondents – shall not be heard until the ex parte
motion is determined.

Again, in its characteristic manner, GTB became aware of the
pendency of this suit, got all the copies of the processes filed in
the suit including the motion ex parte filed by Innoson’s lawyers.
Also, GTB filed a counter affidavit deposed to on 21st December,
2017, got the suit assigned to a judge of its choice and got it
fixed for hearing without Innoson’s lawyers knowing.

GTB’s lawyers attended the hearing of the ex parte application
and therein disclosed the information stated above and as well
started making submissions in respect thereto. As a result,
Innoson’s lawyers withdrew the suit and Innoson is taking steps to
get the judiciary as well as the Acting Chief Judge of the Federal
High Court to investigate what happened – how GTB became aware of
the suit and got all the processes filed therein that were not
served on it.

EFCC’S ARREST OF INNOSON ON 19TH DECEMBER,
2017
Till date, EFCC never told Chief Innocent Chukwuma – Innoson – why
he was arrested except to say on pages of newspapers that he was
arrested because of his fraud at SEC and forgery of documents to
obtain tax waivers.

ALLEGATION OF TAX WAIVERS
None of Innoson’s companies nor Chief Innocent Chukwuma – have
forged any document to secure tax waiver. EFCC had never invited
Innoson in respect of any tax waiver issue and has not investigated
Innoson in respect thereof.

ALLEGATION OF FRAUD AT THE SECURITY AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION (SEC)
Again, none of Innoson’s companies nor Chief Innocent Chukwuma is
involved in any security or share issue. None of Innoson’s
companies is quoted at the Stock Exchange Market and Innoson does
not have any company that deals on shares. EFCC never invited
Innoson at any time nor investigated Innoson for any related
security fraud.

JAMES OSAREMEN AND SAHARA REPORTER’S
ARTICLES
From the above it is clear that:

both James and Sahara Reporters misrepresented the facts to
mislead the public;
the misrepresented facts by James and Sahara Reporters are from
GTB. GTB had previously denied that it was not the reason why EFCC
arrested Innoson and that it was not a party to that.

The questions arising from James and Sahara Reporters’ articles
are:

i. is GTB now saying that those were the reasons why EFCC
arrested Chief Innocent Chukwuma;
ii. if the answer to the question above is Yes, does it not show
that GTB engaged in double speaking?;

iii. if GTB double speaks, does it not portray it as an
unreliable and irresponsible organisation?

BILLS OF LANDING IN GTB’S CUSTODY AND STATEMENT AT THE
POLICE
Who is sure that GTB did not in its characteristic manner create,
generate or manufacture the Bills of Lading, no one has
investigated this, given that:

Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd – the shipping company whose bills of
lading are in issue confirmed that the bills of lading used in
clearing the goods were genuine;

Mr Okechukwu Okeke – the GTB’s staff that dealt with Innoson’s
staff at all material times confirmed and stated in his extra
judicial statement to the police that GTB released the bills of
lading in issue to Innoson’s staff and that the release was
endorsed in GTB’s register;

GTB alleged that the register was destroyed by fire.

POLICE AND GTB’S CONCEALMENT OF MR OKECHUKWU OKEKE’S
EXTRA JUDICIAL STATEMENT
Yet again, in its characteristic manner and style, GTB got the
police to conceal Mr Okechukwu Okeke’s extra judicial statement to
the police because it is unfavourable to GTB. The Nigerian Police
and EFCC have till date refused to produce Mr Okechukwu Okeke’s
extra judicial statement. We therefore challenge the Nigerian
Police, EFCC and GTB to produce Mr Okechukwu Okeke’s extra judicial
statement and to authorize Sahara Reporters to publish it so that
the whole world will know the truth. Same applies to the register –
the Nigerian Police and EFCC should compel GTB to produce the
register in issue.

N560 MILLION EXCESS CHARGES
Finally, with respect to N559 Million which Sahara Reporters and
James Osaremen referred to and classified in their respective
articles as default charges; may we invite their attention to the
fact that that was litigated in Suit No: FHC/AWK/CS/139/2012. In
that suit, the trial Judge came to conclusion that the charges were
excess charges, unlawful and illegal. GTB was represented in that
case by an eminent Counsel – Senior Advocate of Nigeria. The
learned trial Judge at pages 7-8 of the judgment of 16th May, 2013
in that suit (copy annexed) held thus:

“Since any money belonging to a customer is credited to his
account, and that which is paid out of the account debited as well
as that which the bank earns from or through the account. In the
instant suit there is nowhere the 1st Respondent have shown the
reversal of the excess charges made on the account of 1st Plaintiff
with it by crediting the 1st Plaintiff’s account which it debited
illegally by way of excess charges. Equally no evidence is led by
the 1st Defendant to show that the excess interest charges is
within the Central Bank of Nigeria guideline and therefore, illegal
pursuant to Section 15 of Banking Act. See First Bank of Nigeria
Plc. –vs- Odaudu Uwada (2001)1 FWLR (Pt.50) 1696 at 1709, First
Bank Plc. –vs- Mamman Ltd (2001) FWLR (Pt.31) 2890 at 2907.”

May be James Osaremen and Sahara Reporters are reversing the
above quoted judgment of the Honourable Court.

Cornel Osigwe
Head, Corporate Affairs,
Innoson Group

DOWNLOAD: NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL

DOWNLOAD: AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT FOR AN ORDER OF
VARIATION

DOWNLOAD: RULING OF 9TH DEC. 2017

DOWNLOAD: EFCC STRIKE OUT

DOWNLOAD: ORDER OF 23RD MAY 2013

DOWNLOAD: RULING OF 9TH DEC. 2014 (CONTINUATION)