The Federal High Court in Lagos has fixed November 18, 2020, to
rule on the no-case submission filed by Internet personality,
Ismaila Mustapha, alias Mompha, who is facing money laundering
charges.
![image](/2020/10/lawreport.jpg")
Justice Mohammed Liman fixed the date on Wednesday, after
Mompha’s lawyer, Mr Gboyega Oyewole (SAN), moved the no-case
submission, urging the court to dismiss the charges against his
client.
Oyewole argued that despite calling 10 witnesses and tendering a
load of documents, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission
failed to establish a prima facie case against Mompha and his
co-defendant, Ismalob Global Investment Limited.
Oyewole urged Justice Liman to dismiss the 22 counts against the
defendants and set them free.
But the prosecution counsel for the EFCC, S.I. Suleiman, opposed
the prayer, insisting that the anti-graft agency had substantiated
its allegations against them.
After taking arguments from the lawyers, Justice Liman adjourned
till November 18, 2020, for a ruling.
In the amended 22 counts before the court, the EFCC alleged that
between 2015 and 2018, Mompha procured Ismalob Global Investment
Limited to retain an aggregate of N32.95bn in its bank account.
The EFCC said he ought to have reasonably known that the funds
formed parts of proceeds of an unlawful act; to wit: fraud.
In the counts against Ismalob Global Investment Limited, the
EFCC said as a designated non-financial institution, the firm
failed to report to the EFCC within seven days huge single
lodgments and transfers such as N104.8m, N135m, N20m, N150m,
N22.3m, N100m and N42m.
Furthermore, the EFCC alleged that not being an authorised buyer
of foreign exchange currency appointed by the Central Bank of
Nigeria, Mompha negotiated several foreign exchange transactions
with different individuals in the sums of N20m, N22.3m, N30m,
N100m, and N40.7m.
He was also accused of making cash payments of €299,000,
€213,675, €273,000 to one Ahmed Sarki, said to be deceased.
These offences were said to be contrary to Section 18(c),
15(2)(d), 15(3), and Section 10 of the Money Laundering
(Prohibition) Act.
The Federal High Court in Lagos has fixed November 18, 2020, to
rule on the no-case submission filed by Internet personality,
Ismaila Mustapha, alias Mompha, who is facing money laundering
charges.
Justice Mohammed Liman fixed the date on Wednesday, after
Mompha’s lawyer, Mr Gboyega Oyewole (SAN), moved the no-case
submission, urging the court to dismiss the charges against his
client.
Oyewole argued that despite calling 10 witnesses and tendering a
load of documents, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission
failed to establish a prima facie case against Mompha and his
co-defendant, Ismalob Global Investment Limited.
Oyewole urged Justice Liman to dismiss the 22 counts against the
defendants and set them free.
But the prosecution counsel for the EFCC, S.I. Suleiman, opposed
the prayer, insisting that the anti-graft agency had substantiated
its allegations against them.
After taking arguments from the lawyers, Justice Liman adjourned
till November 18, 2020, for a ruling.
In the amended 22 counts before the court, the EFCC alleged that
between 2015 and 2018, Mompha procured Ismalob Global Investment
Limited to retain an aggregate of N32.95bn in its bank account.
The EFCC said he ought to have reasonably known that the funds
formed parts of proceeds of an unlawful act; to wit: fraud.
In the counts against Ismalob Global Investment Limited, the
EFCC said as a designated non-financial institution, the firm
failed to report to the EFCC within seven days huge single
lodgments and transfers such as N104.8m, N135m, N20m, N150m,
N22.3m, N100m and N42m.
Furthermore, the EFCC alleged that not being an authorised buyer
of foreign exchange currency appointed by the Central Bank of
Nigeria, Mompha negotiated several foreign exchange transactions
with different individuals in the sums of N20m, N22.3m, N30m,
N100m, and N40.7m.
He was also accused of making cash payments of €299,000,
€213,675, €273,000 to one Ahmed Sarki, said to be deceased.
These offences were said to be contrary to Section 18(c),
15(2)(d), 15(3), and Section 10 of the Money Laundering
(Prohibition) Act.