The investigator in the case where the founder of the defunct Beige Bank, Michael Nyinaku is standing trial has told the High Court in Accra that, his investigation did not reveal that the accused received or stole any monies as per counts one to nine of the charges levelled against him.

ASP Abednego Atsah, the 5th Prosecution Witness said, “it is correct” that throughout his investigation, he did not find anything showing that the accused person was ever paid monies directly as per the records made available to him during the investigations.

The Investigator made this known to the Financial and Economic Division of the Accra High Court presided over by Justice Afia Serwah Asare-Botwe, a Justice of the Court of Appeal sitting as an additional High Court judge, during further cross-examination on July 28, August 1st and August 2nd 2023 respectively by defence lawyers led by Lawyer Thaddeus Sory.

Of the 43 charges that have been levelled against the accused, nine bother on stealing, 25 on fraudulent breach of trust and another nine bother on money laundering. 

He has pleaded not guilty to all the charges.

ASP Joseph Atsah, admitted that, in all the nine charges which bother on stealing not a pesewa of the funds in question were found to have been disbursed to the accused in his personal capacity and neither was any evidence found that the accused benefitted directly from those funds. 

However, in the view of ASP Atsah, the charges of stealing were preferred against the accused based simply on the fact that he was known as a shareholder or director to all the companies to whom funds were advanced.

In his evidence-in-chief as contained in his witness statement that has been adopted by the Court presided over by Justice Asare-Botwe, a Justice of the Court of Appeal sitting as an additional High Court judge.

Highlights of Cross Examination on Count 1

“Throughout all your investigations, did you find out if any of the funds transferred to Alberry (a company of which the accused is a Director) was ever paid to the accused person directly?”  Lawyer Sory asked the Investigator.

In his response, ASP Atsah, said “No my lady, there was no record or evidence of any funds being disbursed to the accused in his personal capacity  however our investigations revealed that the accused was a shareholder of Alberry Ltd, the entity that received the funds.

When counsel put to the Witness that “the accused person never stole any funds belonging to the Beige Bank because the funds in question were funds belonging to Alberry Company, having received same from another owner of the funds called FASL(First Africa Savings and Loans).

The investigator in his response said, “It is correct,” adding that, “The funds came from FASL to Alberry.”

It was the case of Mr Sorry that, under Count One of the charge sheet, the accused is alleged to have stolen an amount of GH¢5,240,000 described as the property of the Beige Bank which he (accused) caused it to be transferred to a related company called Alberry Company Limited.

Counsel again recounted that, in the course of the proceedings, PW1 (First Prosecution Witness) tendered in evidence “Exhibit L” to show how the funds were transferred to Alberry. 

While making reference to “Exhibit L,” which contained (a series and a request for transfer of funds dated April 26, 2018 with an attached memo and another request dated May 11, 2018 also with an attached memo and May 15, 2018 also with an attached memo, Counsel asked the Witness if he found them?

In all of the above, the Witness answered in the affirmative.

It was the case of Counsel that “Exhibit L”series confirm that there was a request to transfer 2 Million Ghana Cedis, One million Ghana Cedis and GH¢2,240,000 to Alberry Company.

Counsel again said, If the Witness looked at the total of these sum, “that is what equals Five Million, Two Hundred and Forty thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢5,240,000) which is a subject of Count One.”

The Witness in his answer said counsel assertions were correct.

Asked if it was correct that all of the requests and the memos were duly signed by the officers whose signatures appear in them, the Witness said, “that is correct in respect of the account that was being investigated.”

Mr Sory again while putting it to the Witness said, “if one is a director or shareholder of a company, it does not mean monies paid to that company on account of transactions it has had with a third party can be said to have been stolen by a director or shareholder of that recipient company.

ASP Atsah, in his response said, “Per the assertion of counsel, that is correct.”

 After first of all establishing evidence through the witness that the funds that went to Alberry Ltd came directly from FASL and not the bank as was being alleged by the prosecution, defence counsel Thaddeus Sory established further evidence through cross-examination on how Alberry Ltd utilised the funds that it received from FASL.

Through that further trend of cross-examination counsel proved and the witness also admitted that the records of how funds were utilized by Alberry Ltd confirm that the funds were utilized for the same purpose outlined in the memos that accompanied the initial request for funds whilst all disbursements by Alberry were made to third parties for services Alberry procured from them.

And again in all of those instances, the witness confirmed that from a review of the bank statements of Alberry Ltd together with the underlying payment vouchers the support the entries on the bank statements, there was no evidence that any payment of funds was ever made by Alberry to the accused.

*Details Of Cross Examination Of Pw5 By Mr. Sory*

Q: Take a look at the charge sheet, if you read Counts One to Nine, they all charge the accused of having stolen various sums of money which is stated in the particulars of offence as property of the Beige Bank, do you confirm that?

A: That is correct.

Q: If you take a look at Count One of the charge sheet, the accused is alleged to have stolen an amount of GH¢5,240,000 described as the property of the beige bank which he caused to be transferred to a related company called Alberry Company Limited, is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: In the course of the proceedings, PW1 tendered in evidence Exhibit L to show how the funds were transferred to Alberry. Take a look at Exhibit L, it is a series and there is a request for transfer of funds dated April 26th, 2018 with an attached memo. Then another requested dated May 11th 2018 also with an attached memo and finally May 15th 2018 also with an attached memo, do you find them?

A: That is correct.

Q: Please take a look at Exhibit L series and confirm that there was a request to transfer 2 Million Ghana Cedis, One million Ghana Cedis and GH¢2,240,000 to Alberry Company, is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: If you look at the total of these sum, that is what equals Five Million, Two Hundred and Forty thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢5,240,000) which is a subject of Count One, is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: All of the requests and the memos were duly signed by the officers whose signatures appear in them, is that correct?

A: That is correct in respect of the account that was being investigated.

Q: Take a look at Exhibit K, take a look at the dates, 27th April, 2018, the first request of 2 Million Ghana Cedis (GH¢2,000,000) is indicated there as having been debited to the account of FASL, is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: It is the same with the dates 11th May, 2018 and 16th May, 2018 where you find the sums of One Million Ghana Cedis (GH¢1,000,000) and Two Million, Two Hundred and Forty Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢2,240,000), you will find debited to the same accounts?

A: That is correct.

Q: And the effect is that they have been credited to the Alberry account, is that correct?

A: That is correct my lady.

Q: Take a look at this document, it is the statement of Alberry, is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Mr. Sory: My lady I want to tender the bank statement through the witness.

By Court: Any objection?

Mrs. Ohene Appiah: My lady we have an objection to the tendering of these set of documents through this witness. The documents are not coming from his custody. There has not been any foundation to test his knowledge of the content of these documents. My lady would realize that when the prosecution tendered Exhibit K which is similar to these set of documents Counsel is seeking to tender, we tendered them through the Receiver who we proved to this court that he had custody of the documents, he had working knowledge of the documents and was able to explain to this court and connect the figures on the documents to the various counts they related to. It is not just about the figures appearing on the documents but the accounting reasoning attributable to the documents and looking at the way PW1 explained the documents and was able to distinguish between the figures that formed the basis of our charges and other similar figures appearing on the surface on Exhibit K, we do not have any information in this court to suggest that, this witness is capable of answering questions on this document for which it should be tendered through him.

Indeed, he is the investigator but these documents do not form part of the documents which came into his possession in the course of investigating this case. All we are saying is that he is not the appropriate person to tender these documents so the court should disallow the tendering of these documents through the witness. I respectfully submit.

Mr. Sory: My lady we urge the court to overrule the objection on a number of grounds. First of all, the document are relevant to Count One on the charge sheet and the basic rule of evidence is that, all relevant evidence is admissible unless it is specifically prescribed by a party rule of evidence. My lady sufficient foundation have been laid based on the figures on the charge sheet which reflects clearly in Exhibit K which was tendered in evidence by the prosecution. Exhibit K reflected a debit record which must be completed by a credit record and that is the basis upon which the document is being tendered. If the prosecution decided to tender one aspect of a complete record and omitted one aspect of it and which relates to what they have already tendered in evidence, the part omitted to complete the full story not only for the assistance of the court but also to advance the accused person’s case through cross examination is admissible.

Secondly the argument that the witness did not have custody of the documents provides no legal answer to tendering the documents through the witness. In the first place, that argument misconceives the difference between examination-in-chief in which a witness comes forward to testify about what they claim they have perceived by any of their senses, with cross examination, where the credibility of the witness is tested. In this case, the witness in the box is the investigator and taken into account the various grounds, a witness credibility can be tested which includes obvious testing of the witness and also his credibility, the document is admissible. In terms of his testimony, it will go to show how incomplete his investigations were and with regard to he himself, it would go to show how selective his testimony is in this particular matter. In so far as these two matters are concerned, it does not matter if he says that he has no knowledge of it.

Thirdly, it is completely untrue that when PW1 testified in this court, he gave evidence as to the supporting documentation on the basis of which those figures reflected in Exhibit K. All he did was to show the requests and the memos and so to the extent that his knowledge of how those figures reflected in Exhibit K because he (PW1) did not perform any of those transactions himself was not known to him, they were admissible if only to show how they connected to Count One. In this particular case, the accused is being charged with having stolen funds from a company into whose account the very amount mentioned in Count One has reflected. The statement of account of that company is very relevant to the charge in order to show how he stole the money and anything connected to that account and how the money in that account was expended. As long as we have been able to trace the connection between the figures stated in Count One and the statement of case tendered in evidence as Exhibit K and that which we now seek to tender in and possibly others to show connection, all such documents are relevant to Count One. If he is asked any question about any subordinate matter in respect of which he cannot answer, Counsel will address on it and the court will evaluate it and deal with it accordingly. This objection should be overruled.

BY COURT

The basic considerations in this matter are;

a) Section 51 of NRCD 323 – All relevant evidence is admissible except …

b) Section 60 – a witness may not testify to a matter unless sufficient evidence is introduced to support a finding that he has personal knowledge of the matter.

Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not consist of testimony of the witness himself. In this case, the foundation ought to be laid either by way of evidence of PW5 in the box currently, or any other, to show that the witness has personal knowledge of what he is being asked to speak on. In this case, having looked at the foundation laid (if at all), there is nothing showing that this witness has personal knowledge of the document being sought to be tendered through him. He cannot be equated to a witness like PW1 who claims to have been the one to have audited the inspections of Beige Bank and its associated entities, the objection is sustained. The document is marked as R1.

Q: If you look at Exhibit L series which have the memos attached to them, the memo dated 26th April, 2018 and that dated 11th May, 2018 and that dated 15th May, 2018, the request for the transfer of funds to Alberry was for the payment of leases and office expenditure, office set up expenses and office set up expenditure, is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: I am therefore putting it to you that the figure which is the subject of Count One was expended for the very purposes set out in Exhibit L series.

A: I disagree and I am just looking at the memos and the memos have narratives from an investigator’s perspective. The narrative here is not enough for an investigator to conclude that it served the purpose.

Q: What other information would a crack investigator like you need to reach the conclusion that the monies were actually expended in accordance with the prosecution’s own Exhibit L?

A: As I stated and as indicated in the memos, there is the need for us to get supporting materials that would account for the bulk money as stated in the memos and the transfer of funds.

Q: Can you clarify at least for the benefit of the court what these supporting materials would be?

A: Per the memo and the transfer of funds from FASL to Alberry, since the funds were going to Alberry and Alberry did indicate the purpose. For instance, office set expenditure among others, Alberry ought to demonstrate by showing evidence that the money was used for the purpose

Q: My question again is that, what evidence would you require to satisfy you that it was used for that purpose?

A: We need justification from Alberry.

Q: So the particular piece of evidence you are looking for is “justification” is it an implement, document or what?

A: The justification could be in the form of documents. Documents that outline how the money was expended.

Q: Documents such as pay voucher or cheque that shows that Alberry paid people for office equipment, will that satisfy you?

A: Pay vouchers or cheques are documents to prove how monies are expended.

Q: Did you ask Alberry to produce any such documents in the course of your investigation?

A: I think as the court ordered the last sitting, the documents that came in respect of all the companies from the Commercial Crime Unit (CCU) as indicated were handed over to the Attorney General to be served on Counsel.

Q: Did these documents you discovered include these cheques and pay vouchers?

A: Those documents that came into my custody contains several memos and pay vouchers.

Q: Did you have any queries in respect of any of those pay vouchers that you have discovered?

A: We did not query any of those pay vouchers.

Q: I am therefore putting it to you that in respect of expenditure, the companies proved to you that in terms of the memos on the basis of which monies were transferred to them, they used the monies for the purpose indicated in those memos.

A: Per what they submitted to us, that is so but we could not tell whether those were the exact funds from the account that was under investigation.

Q: I am further putting it to you that because you could not tell whether those were the particular funds that were under investigation which were expended by those 10 companies, it is completely erroneous for you to have concluded your investigations that those funds were stolen.

A: After investigation we forwarded the docket to the AG and AG duly advised on the docket.

Q: Throughout all your investigations, did you find out if any of the funds transferred to Alberry was ever paid to the accused person directly?

A: No my lady because what we knew was that Alberry is an entity that is owned by the accused person.

Q: I am therefore putting it to you that the accused person never stole any funds belonging to the Beige Bank because the funds in question were funds belonging to Alberry having received same from another owner of the funds called FASL.

A: It is correct. The funds came from FASL to Alberry.

Q: I am also putting it to you that the documentation that establishes how the money was transferred from FASL to Alberry and the memos Alberry raised with regard to the expenditure in respect of that money confirm that there was nothing dishonest about the transaction between FASL and Alberry.

A: The account that was being investigated from which the funds came from to Alberry, there is no dispute about the fact there was movement of funds from the two accounts.

Q: Even with the funds that were in the account of FASL which was investigated by you, all your investigations confirmed that the funds were legitimately placed in FASL by BCAM as a Fund Manager, I am putting that to you.

A: We have no disputes about the placements. The investigations was centered on the FASL account in question.

Q: Take a look at Exhibit M which is a series is a record of a request of transfer of funds dated May 29th 2018 and the second request dated June 5th 2018, is that correct?

A: That is correct my lady.

Q: This request is for the transfer of funds to a company called DYI Limited, is that correct?

A: That is correct my lady.

Q: It is duly requested and signed by the appropriate officials, is that correct?

A: It was signed by Yvonne Philips and Augustine Boakye Yiadom.

Q: From your previous testimony in this court, these two individuals you have just mentioned also worked with FASL, is that correct?

A: I know Vanessa Akorfa worked with FASL.

Q: But Yvonne Philips was a signatory to that FASL account, is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: From Exhibit M series that you are holding, a total amount of 3 Million Ghana Cedis was requested to be transferred to DYI Limited?

A: That is correct.

Q: If you look at Count Two on the charge sheet, the accused is charged to having stolen the sum of 6 Million Ghana Cedis described as the property of the Beige Bank, is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: The 3 Million Ghana Cedis which is the subject of Exhibit M series never came from the Beige Bank, is that correct?

A: The FASL account was situate at the Beige Bank.

Q: Did the Beige Bank transfer the 3 Million Ghana Cedis directly into the account of DYI Limited?

A: As I said, the account was named FASL and that account was situate with the Beige Bank and it is from the Beige Bank that it was transferred to DYI.

Q: So, was it from the Beige Bank account the money was transferred from or a different account?

A: It was transferred from the FASL account.

Q: I am putting it to you that regardless of where the account was situate, the funds were never transferred from any Beige Bank account and never owned by Beige Bank.

A: I disagree with you.

Q: Take a look at Exhibit K, you realize that in respect of Exhibit M series, the first payment of 30th May, 2018 in the sum of 1.5 Million Ghana Cedis and second payment of 1.5 Million Ghana Cedis on June 5th, 2018 are all debited to the account of FASL, is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: That makes a total of 3 Million Ghana Cedis all debited to FASL, is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: I am putting it to you that your disagreement with counsel that the funds do not belong to the Beige Bank is itself discredited by Exhibit K.

 A: I disagree with you and my disagreement is centered on the grounds that we are talking of depositors’ funds that went from BCAM to FASL account. These depositors worked with the bank directly.

 Q: Take a look at Exhibit which is the FASL account investigated by you, tell the court which customers money you identify in Exhibit K coming from the Beige Bank?

 A: As indicated by Yvonne Philips, Vanessa Akorfa Atsu, Nana Afia Evelyn Kyei that investments that exceeded the profit margin of the bank either went to BCAM or advisory. there are deposits in Exhibit K that are attributed to BCAM so the deposits from BCAM into the FASL account were assumed to constitute depositors’ funds.

 Q: You mentioned Nana Afia Evelyn Kyei, there is also Thomas Esso who both told you that funds placed by the Beige Bank with BCAM were placed with the consent of the customers, I am putting that to you.

 A: Per their assertion, that is true.

 Q: In any event, I am putting it to you that the funds they are talking about now are funds placed by BCAM with FASL and you cannot point at one customer of the Beige Bank whose funds were placed by BCAM with FASL.

A: I can point to Bidvest for instance

 Q: The evidence with regard to Bidvest is that, Bidvest was fully paid from the same account, I am putting that to you.

 A: That is correct. That notwithstanding, Bidvest as a client had their investments going into that account.

 Q: I am putting it to you that Bidvest was fully aware that its funds were placed with FASL and redeemed its funds directly from a debit from FASL account and made no complaint about it.

 A: That is not correct. In fact, Bidvest Management indicated that they called for the premature termination of their investments because of discrepancies they found on the certificate issued to them.

 Q: So, from your testimony it was because of the inconsistencies in their statement but never because they were never aware of where their investments were because they were consistently paid from the FASL account, I am putting that to you

 A: Bidvest was aware that they were placed their investments with the Beige Bank and they called for the premature redemption of their investments because the certificate they had according to them did not come from the bank.

Q: Take a look at the transaction dated 25th April, 2018 and the debit record of FASL of the same date, you would find that the FASL account was debited in the sum of GH¢3,127,397.27 in favour od Bidvest, is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: Take a look at Exhibit K again and the date 18th July, 2018, there is a debit record of GH¢14,873.69 debited to the account of FASL again in favour of Bidvest, is that correct?

 A: That is correct.

 Q: I am putting it to you that it cannot be correct that Bidvest which complained about its investments having been placed in FASL would transact with the same FASL in April and continue to deal with FASL up to July.

A: I disagree with you because the Bidvest manager indicated that the interest due them did not come in full and for that matter, they had to write back to the bank to remind them and that accounted for the 18th July, 2018 transfer that went to Bidvest.

Q: Finally, I am putting it to you that your investigations did not reveal that one pesewa was not paid out of DYI Limited’s account to the accused person.

A: What our investigation revealed was that DYI Limited happens to be an entity that is owned by the accused person.

Q: I am finally putting it to you that being a shareholder or a director of a company does not mean the person has stolen monies that has come into the account of that company which has transacted with a third-party company to obtain that fund.

A: I do not understand the question

Q: If one is a director or shareholder of a company, it does not mean monies paid to the company by a third party has been stolen by a director or shareholder of that company.

A: Per the assertion of counsel, that is correct.

Q: You recall on the last adjourned date you were shown Exhibit L series which are documents reflecting request for transfer of funds to one of the companies called Alberry Limited?

A: That is correct.

Q: You recall that you were cross examined and a question was put to you that the request for the transfer of funds in Exhibit L series related to specific matters?

A: That is correct?

Q: You also recall that I put it to you that the funds transferred to Alberry were expended in accordance to the purpose indicated in Exhibit L series and you answered that you would be only convinced if that can be cross checked from the payment vouchers?

A: That is correct. I recall that I indicated that the Exhibit L series per the narration was not wholistic in itself. It had to be backed by documents that would include supporting memos, vouchers among others.

Q: You have since pursuant to the order of the court disclosed some of these cheque disbursement request, payment vouchers and copies of the cheques by which third parties were paid by these ten related companies, is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: Early on before you disclosed these documents the prosecution had also disclosed to the court in a pen drive the statements of all these companies to confirm the transfer of funds to these ten companies from Exhibit K to the ten companies which were submitted to the Commercial Crime Unit (CCU), if  you take a look at pages 3 and 4 of the Attorney General’s letter to the court dated 7th February, 2023 from paragraphs 23 to 36, a list of the bank statements of some of these related companies are set out there, were they included in the documents you sent to the Attorney General?

A: That is correct.

Q: Take a look at the following three documents which you last disclosed to the court, they include a cheque disbursement form, a payment voucher and a cheque in the sum of Four Hundred and Twenty-Five Thousand, Six Hundred and Six Ghana Cedis, Thirteen Pesewas (GH¢425,606.13) of payment to Premier Contractors, have you seen it?

A: Yes I have.

Q: Those three documents are issued on a letterhead of Alberry which is at the center of Count One, is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Mr. Sory: My lady I want to tender the document through the witness.

By Court: Any objection?

Mrs. Ohene-Appiah: My lady there will be no objection.

BY COURT

The document is admitted without objection as Exhibit 40 and the pages will be numbered for ease of reference.

Q: I am showing you another cheque disbursement form, payment voucher and a cheque in the sum of Two Thousand, Four Hundred and Eighty-Four Ghana Cedis, Thirty Pesewas (GH¢2,484.30) to Nhyira Building and civil Works by Alberry, is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Mr. Sory: My lady I want to tender the document through the witness

By Court: Any objection

Mrs. Ohene-Appiah: My lady there will be no objection.

BY COURT

The document is admitted without objection as Exhibit 41 and the pages will be numbered for ease of reference.

Q: The document I am about to hand over to you consist of a cheque disbursement form, a payment voucher and a cheque of GH¢200,000 for the payment to a certain Steve Ocansey by Alberry, is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Mr. Sory: My lady I want to tender the document through the witness

By Court: Any objection

Mrs. Ohene-Appiah: My lady there will be no objection.

BY COURT

The document is admitted without objection as Exhibit 42 and the pages will be numbered for ease of reference.

Q: I am also handing over to you a cheque disbursement form, payment voucher and a cheque in the sum of Eighty-Six Thousand, Four Hundred and Forty-Nine Ghana Cedis, Ninety-Eight pesewas (GH¢86,449.98) for payment to Theophilus Appiah by Alberry?

A: That is correct.

Mr. Sory: My lady I want to tender the document through the witness

By Court: Any objection

Mrs. Ohene-Appiah: My lady there will be no objection.

BY COURT

The document is admitted without objection as Exhibit 43 and the pages will be numbered for ease of reference.

Q: I am also handing over to you a cheque disbursement form, payment voucher and a cheque in the sum of Fifty-Seven Thousand, Six Hundred and Thirty-Three Ghana Cedis, Thirty-Two Pesewas (GH¢57,633.32) for payment to the same Theophilus Appiah by Alberry.

A: That is correct.

Mr. Sory: My lady I want to tender the document through the witness?

By Court: Any objection

Mrs. Ohene-Appiah: My lady there will be no objection.

BY COURT

The document is admitted without objection as Exhibit 44 and the pages will be numbered for ease of reference.

Q: The document I am about to hand over to you again is a cheque disbursement form, payment voucher and a cheque in the sum of 46,580.00 for payment to Thread Engineering by Alberry.

A: That is correct my lady.

Mr. Sory: My lady I want to tender the document through the witness

By Court: Any objection

Mrs. Ohene-Appiah: My lady there will be no objection.

BY COURT

The document is admitted without objection as Exhibit 45 and the pages will be numbered for ease of reference.

Q: Take a look this document, it is a cheque disbursement form, payment voucher and a cheque in the sum of Fifteen Thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty Ghana Cedis (GH¢15,750.00) for payment to Charles Nortey by Alberry, is that correct?

A: That is correct my lady.

Mr. Sory: My lady I want to tender the document through the witness.

By Court: Any objection

Mrs. Ohene-Appiah: My lady there will be no objection.

BY COURT

The document is admitted without objection as Exhibit 46 and the pages will be numbered for ease of reference.

Q: I am also handing you a cheque disbarment form, payment voucher and a cheque in the sum of Sixty-Seven Thousand, Nine Hundred and Sixty-One Ghana Cedis Seventeen pesewas (GH¢67,961.17) for payment to Yepon Ventures by Alberry, is that correct?

A: That is correct my lady.

Mr. Sory: My lady I want to tender the document through the witness

By Court: Any objection

Mrs. Ohene-Appiah: My lady there will be no objection.

BY COURT

The document is admitted without objection as Exhibit 47 and the pages will be numbered for ease of reference.

Q: They have just handed to you a payment voucher, a cheque Disbursement form and a cheque in the sum of One Hundred and Seven Thousand, Ten Ghana Cedis, Ninety-Three Pesewas (GH¢107,010.93) for payment to the Ghana Revenue Authority by Alberry, is that correct?

A: That is correct my lady.

Mr. Sory: My lady I want to tender the document through the witness

By Court: Any objection

Mrs. Ohene-Appiah: My lady there will be no objection.

BY COURT

The document is admitted without objection as Exhibit 48 and the pages will be numbered for ease of reference.

Q: If you take a look at Exhibits 40 to 48, you would realize that the process leading to the issuance of the cheques is requested by a specific official, approved by another official and the payment voucher is verified by a specific official of Alberry, is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: If you take a look at Exhibits 40 to 48, you would also realize that the specific purposes for which each of those cheques were issued are clearly indicated on the face of the payment voucher and the cheque disbursement form, is that correct?

A: That is correct my lady.

Q: I am putting it to you that there is no shred of evidence adduced in this court to establish that even one pesewa of the Five Million, Two Hundred and Forty Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢5,240,000) which is the subject matter of the stealing charge in Count One was ever paid to the accused person.

A: That is correct my lady. Nonetheless, what we are saying is that, Alberry belongs to the accused person.

Q: I am finally putting it to you that your investigations did not reveal that the accused person received in any way even one pesewa of the Five Million, Two Hundred and Forty Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢5,240,000) which is the subject matter of this case on the charge of Count One.

A: That is correct. As I stated a while ago, Alberry which was the beneficiary of the funds advanced is the property of the accused person.

Q: I am also putting it to you that your investigations did not trace any of the assets purchased by Alberry to the accused person.

A: To the accused in person, that is correct just as I stated a while ago. Alberry is the property of the accused person.

Q: I am handling to you cheque disbursement form, payment voucher and a cheque in the sum of Two Hundred Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢200,000) for payment to Yeboahlex Company Limited by Adelia Limited which is the company mentioned in Count 4, is that correct?

A: That is correct?

Mr. Sory: My lady I want to tender the document through the witness

By Court: Any objection?

Mrs. Ohene-Appiah: My lady there will be no objection.

BY COURT

The document is admitted without objection as Exhibit 49.

Q: I am also handling to you a cheque disbursement form, payment voucher and a cheque in the sum of One Hundred Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢100,000) for payment to Charles Owusu Ofori by Adelia, is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Mr. Sory: My lady I want to tender the document through the witness

By Court: Any objection?

Mrs. Ohene-Appiah: My lady there will be no objection.

BY COURT

The document is admitted without objection as Exhibit 50.

Q: I am showing you a cheque disbursement form, payment voucher and a cheque in the sum of Fifty Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢50,000) for payment to Emmanuel Addo by Adelia, is that correct?

A: That is correct my lady.

Mr. Sory: My lady I want to tender the document through the witness

By Court: Any objection?

Mrs. Ohene-Appiah: My lady there will be no objection.

BY COURT

The document is admitted without objection as Exhibit 51.

Q: I am showing you another cheque disbursement form, payment voucher and a cheque in the sum of 5,400.00 for payment to a certain Godwin Alaga by Adelia, is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Mr. Sory: My lady I want to tender the document through the witness

By Court: Any objection?

Mrs. Ohene-Appiah: My lady there will be no objection.

BY COURT

The document is admitted without objection as Exhibit 52.

Q: I am handing to you a cheque disbursement form, payment voucher and a cheque in the sum of Five Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢5,000) for payment to Seyram Agbeve by Adelia, is that correct?

A: That is correct my lady.

Mr. Sory: My lady I want to tender the document through the witness

By Court: Any objection?

Mrs. Ohene-Appiah: My lady there will be no objection.

BY COURT

The document is admitted without objection as Exhibit 53.

Q: If you look at Exhibits 49 to 53 which have been tendered in evidence in respect of Count 4, you would realize that the processes were originated and authorized by the distinct officials, is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: You would realize also that the payment in respect of Exhibit 53 had as its purpose a donation to the Oyibi Police station?

A: To the Oyibi police and not the station.

Q: I am putting it to you that your investigations did not reveal that the accused received one pesewa in respect of which he is charged of stealing in Count 4 of the charge sheet.

A: That is correct. Nonetheless, Adelia Limited is the property of the accused person.

Q: Take a look at these documents, they are payment vouchers and cheque disbursement forms given to Matilda Denkyira, Beige Care Health Insurance, BBS Logistics Limited, the Beige Bank and also a funds transfer request for the transfer of funds to the Beige Pension Trust Limited by Legacy Pension Trust, is that correct?

A: That is correct my lady.

Mr. Sory: My lady I want to tender the documents through the witness

By Court: Any objection?

Mrs. Ohene-Appiah: My lady there will be no objection.

BY COURT

The documents emanating from the Legacy Pension Trust are admitted without objection and same are marked as follows:

a. Matilda Denkyira as Exhibit -54

b. Beige Care as Exhibit 54A

c. BB Logistics as Exhibit 54B

d. Beige Bank as Exhibit 54C

e. Matilda Denkyira as Exhibit 54D

f. Beige Bank as Exhibit 54E

Q: If you look at Exhibit 54 to 54E, you would find again that they all originated and authorized by specific officials?

A: That is correct.

Q: And the purpose for which all the payments were made is also clearly stated in those exhibits?

A: That is correct my lady.

Q: I am putting it to you that your investigations did not reveal that the accused person received even one pesewa from the sum which is the subject of the charge in Count three.

A: That is correct my lady. As usual, Legal Pension Trust is the property of the accused person.

Q: I am about to hand you cheque disbursement form and payment vouchers for payment to the Trust Hospital, Nyaho Medial Centre, Saqs Health Care Services Limited, BBS Logistics Limited, Ellen Steward and the Beige Bank by Beige Care Health Insurance which is the subject of Count Eight, is that correct?

A: That is correct my lady.

Mr. Sory: My lady I want to tender the documents through the witness

By Court: Any objection?

Mrs. Ohene-Appiah: My lady there will be no objection.

BY COURT

The documents emanating from Beige Care Health Insurance are admitted without objection and same are marked as follows;

a. Trust Hospital as Exhibit 55

b. Nyaho Medical Centre as Exhibit 55A

c. Saqs Health Care Services Limited as Exhibit 55B

d. BBS Logistics Limited as Exhibit 55C

e. Ellen Steward as Exhibit 55D

f. The Beige Bank as Exhibit 55E

Q: I am putting it to you that your investigations did not reveal that the accused person received even one pesewa in respect of the amount stated in Count Eight.

A: The accused person in person, that is correct. However, Beige Care is the property of the accused person.

Q: From the exhibits that have just been tendered i.e., Exhibit 55 series, you would realize that Beige Care is a Health Insurance institution, is that correct?

A: That is correct my lady.

Q: If you take a look specifically at Exhibit 55A, you would realize that the payment was made to Nyaho Medical Centre?

A: That is correct my lady.

Q: Do you still maintain that with the payment to Nyaho Medical Centre, the accused person is a beneficiary only because Beige Care Insurance is a related company?

A: Beige Care Health Insurance is a related company and a property of the accused person though in person and on the surface of the document, the money did not go to the accused in person but Beige Care Health Insurance is a related entity.

Q: From the documents that have tendered in evidence through you so far, you would realize that the related companies involved paid the money they received from FASL to third parties and not the accused person?

A: That is correct my lady.

Q: The exhibits that have been tendered through you so far indicate that these related companies did not even keep the monies themselves, is that correct?

A: That is correct my lady.

Q: I am about to hand to you cheque disbursement forms, payment vouchers for payments to Patrick Adomako and Stephen Owusu Ansong as well as a cheque for payment to Nana Yaa Appiah by Beventure Limited which is the subject of Count Seven (7), is that correct?

A: That is correct my lady.

Mr. Sory: My lady I want to tender the documents through the witness

By Court: Any objection?

Mrs. Ohene-Appiah: My lady there will be no objection.

BY COURT

The documents emanating from Beventure Limited are admitted without objection and same are marked as follows;

a. Patrick Adomako dated 3rd January, 2018 as Exhibit 56

b. Patrick Adomako dated 2nd May, 2018 as Exhibit 56A

c. Stephen Owusu Ansong as Exhibit 56B

d. Nana Yaa Appiah as Exhibit 56C

Q: From the document that have just been tendered through you as Exhibit 56 series, it is clear that all those sums of money were paid by Beventure to third parties and not the accused person, is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: Your investigations therefore did not reveal that any sum of money was paid by Beventure to the accused person, is that correct?

A: That is correct my lady.

Q: It is also correct that each of those documents was originated and authorized before payments were made, is that correct?

A: That is correct my lady.

Q: Take a look at Exhibit V, it is a funds transfer request attached to it is a memo for the transfer of 2.2 Million Ghana Cedis to Beige Capital, you can confirm that?

A: That is correct.

Q: Take a look at Count Nine (9) of the charge sheet, is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: And it is in respect of a company called Beige Capital?

A: That is correct.

Q: If you look at the attached memo to Exhibit V, you would realize that the purpose of that funds transfer request to meet FTD redemptions, is that correct?

A: That is correct?

Q: From your investigations, FTD means Fixed Term Deposit, is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: I am putting it to you that your investigations did not reveal that the 2.2 Million Ghana cedis which is the subject of Count Nine was ever paid to the accused person or any part of it for that matter.

A: That is correct. Just as I said earlier, Beventure Limited which received those funds from FASL account is a related company owned by the accused person.

Q: I am further putting it to you that your investigations did not reveal that the accused was a beneficiary of the 2.2 Million Ghana cedis or any part of it which is the subject of Count Nine on the charge sheet.

A: That is correct to the accused person in person. The accused person personally did not receive the funds. Just as I indicated a while ago, Beventure Limited which received the funds from FASL account is a related company owned by the accused person.

Q: Take a look at Exhibit Q, it is a funds transfer request for the payment of Six Hundred and Twenty-Seven Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢627,000) to Beige Assure, is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: Attached to it is a memo which indicates that the purpose for that amount is for administrative and operational expenses, is that correct?

A: That is correct my lady.

Q: I am putting it to you that the amount transferred from the FASL account to Beige Assure was specifically spent by Beige Assure itself as stated in the memo to Exhibit Q.

A: That is correct.

Q: If you look at Exhibit Q, it relates to the company called Beige Assure which is the subject of Count Six on the charge sheet, is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: I am putting it to you that your investigations did not reveal the payment of the sum of any part thereof stated in Count Six (6) to the accused person.

A: That is correct my lady. Beige Assure is a related company owned by the accused person.

Q: I am putting it to you further that your investigation did not reveal that the accused person benefited in any manner or form from the amount paid to Beige Assure as stated in Count Six (6).

A: That is correct. The accused person in person did not benefit. However, Beige Assure is a related entity.

Q: Take a look at Exhibit S, it is a funds transfer request for the payment of Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Ghana Cedis GH¢250,000 to Beige Academy, is that correct?

A: That is correct my lady.

Q: Beige Academy is the company which is the subject of Count Five (5), is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: If you take a look at the memo attached to Exhibit S, the reason for which the Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢250,00) was requested is stated as office operational and administrative expenses, is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: I am putting it to you that the Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢250,000) stated in Count Five (5) was used by Beige Academy for operational and administrative expenses.

A: That is correct.

Q: I am putting it to you further that Beige Academy did not pay one pesewa out of the Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢250,000) to the accused person.

A: That is correct. Beige Academy as stated in the particulars of offence is a related company to the accused.

Q: I am also putting it to you that your investigations did not reveal that the accused person did not benefit in any manner or form from the Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢250,000) which is the subject of the stealing charge in Count Five (5).

A: The accused person did not benefit personally but as I stated earlier, the Academy is a related entity as couched in the particulars of offence.

Q: The documents I have just handed to you is a statement of account of Adelia, is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Mr. Sory: My lady I want to tender the document through the witness

By Court: Any objection?

Mrs. Ohene-Appiah: My lady there will be no objection.

BY COURT

The statement of account by Adelia Limited for the period of April to July 2018 is admitted without objection and same is marked as Exhibit 57.

Q: Adelia is the subject of Count 4 of the charge sheet and the figure the accused person is alleged to have stolen is One Million, Ten Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢1,010,000), is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: If you just take a look at Exhibit 57 which has just been tendered through you, you would realize that Adelia had about One Hundred and Thirty-Eight Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢138,000) in its account before the sum of Two Hundred and Forty Thousand Ghana Cedis GH¢240,000 was transferred from FASL to Adelia, is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: The next sum of money that was transferred from FASL to Adelia as confirmed by Exhibit 57 was the sum of Seven Hundred and Seventy Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢770,000), is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: It is the total of Two Hundred and Fort Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢240,000) and Seven Hundred and Seventy Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢770,000) which make up One Million, Ten Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢1,010,000) which is the subject of Count 4, is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: Kindly take a look at Exhibit 57 critically and tell the court if you find any entry in Exhibit 57 for which you can reach the conclusion that eve one pesewa out of the One Million, Ten Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢1,010,000) was ever paid to the accused person.

A: There is no entry in Exhibit 57 that mentions the name of the accused person as a beneficiary. However as indicated in the particulars of offence, Adelia is a related company to the accused person.

Q: The total sum of money stated in Count Four of the charge sheet it is One Million, Ten Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢1,010,000), I am putting it to you that if you add the total amount of debits in Exhibit 57, the full amount of One Million, Ten Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢1,010,000) is accounted for.

A: That is correct my lady.

Q: Count One of the charge sheet alleges against the accused that he stole an amount of GH¢5,240,000 by causing the money to be transferred to Alberry Company Limited, is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: If you take a look at the Alberry statement of account that has been shown to you, you would find out that an amount of 2 Million was credited to the Alberry account on the 27th of April, 2018.  

A: That is so my lady.

Q: A further amount of One Million Ghana Cedis was credited to the Alberry account on the 11th of May, 2018, is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: And also on the 16th of May, 2018, an amount of 2,240,000 was credited to the Alberry account, is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: If you look at the three credit transactions that I have just referred you to, it is clear from the statement you are looking at they were credited to the Alberry account from FASL, is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: That means the money that was credited to Albery and about which you have testified belongs to FASL, is that not correct?

A: The monies were depositors funds that were credited to the FASL account.

Q: Funds standing to the credit of a person in a bank even if it is loaned to that person, belongs to the person in whose account such monies are found.

A: That is correct.

Q: I am therefore putting it to you that the monies credited to Alberry from FASL belongs to FASL and not the Bank.

A: Those monies did not belong to FASL although it was in FASL account.

Q: Take a look at the opening balance which is called the closing balance of Alberry, it starts with an amount 2,233,529.47 standing to the credit of Alberry.

A: That is correct.

Q: By that time, all the credit transactions to which you have testified had not been paid to the Alberry account, is that not correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: And you can see a lot of debit and credit transactions on the Alberry account until the 27th of April, 2018 when the first sum of 2 million Ghana Cedis was transferred to the Alberry account?

A: Yes my lady. I can see a lot of debits on the Alberry account but the credit was once until the 27th of April, 2018.

Q: From the 27th of April, 2018 when the amount of 2 million Ghana Cedis was credited to the account of Alberry and to the 11th of May, 2018 when the second amount of One Million was credited to Alberry, you also see a lot credit transactions?

A: Yes it has a lot of debit transactions with two credit transactions before the 11th of May, 2018.

Q: If you take a look at the statements from the period 27th April, 2018 to 11th of May, 2018, do you find any transaction involving the accused person?

A: The accused person in person, there is no narration that mentions his name

Q: Did your investigation reveal that the accused person is related to any of the payees listed in the Alberry statement of account for the same period?

A: That was not part of our investigations.

Q: I am asking relative to the statement that is before you, do you find any hints of his relationship to any of the payees of the various amounts indicated in that statement?

A: As I said, that did not come up in our investigations, our investigations was centered on the fact that the funds that were in the FASL account which was under investigation, aspects of those funds went to related parties of which the accused is the owner of Alberry.

Q: If you do a calculation of the debits from the 27th of April, 2018 to the 11th of May, 2018, the total expenditure would exceed the Two million Ghana Cedis which was deposited in the account of Alberry from the FASL account.

A: That I cannot tell for now. However, as the opening statement of the accounts indicated, there were funds in the account so that is likely.

Q: I am putting it to you that the 2 million Ghana cedis that was transferred from the FASL account to Alberry is fully accounted for in the Alberry statement which you are currently looking at and not even one pesewa was ever transferred to the accused person and the accused did not benefit even one pesewa from that amount of 2 million.

A: Our investigation was not centered on the Alberry account but the FASL account.

Q: If you also take a look at the statement of account for the period 11th May, 2018 to 16th May, 2018, you would find a lot of debits transaction recording payments to various person?

A: That is correct.

Q: Can you take a look at the statement of account for the period 11th May, 2018 to 16th May, 2018 and confirm to the court whether you can find any transaction involving the accused person.

A: To the accused person, No. However, as I stated, the Alberry account is a related party account which company is owned by the accused person.

Q: From the 16th of May, 2018 when the 2,240,000 was transferred to Alberry from the FASL account, you also find a lot of debit transactions. Did any of them involve the accused person as a payee?

A: No my lady.

Q: If you take a look at the statement you are currently looking at, you would find out that the account of Alberry ends with a balance?

A: The balance is GH¢395,718.64 which is not up to the amount transferred from the FASL account.

Q: I am putting it to you that reading the whole of that statement would confirm that the total amount of money which stood to the credit of Alberry including the funds transferred to Alberry from FASL was accounted for without the accused benefiting either directly or indirectly from the funds in the Alberry account.

A: As I stated, our investigations was not on the Alberry account but the funds that were transferred from the FASL account which was under investigations.

Q: You earlier testified a few minutes ago that the funds in the FASL account did not belong to FASL, who did those funds belong to?

A: I stated earlier before this court that depositors’ funds that went to BCAM were the funds that were deposited in that FASL account as indicated by officials of the Beige Group who appeared before us during investigations.

Q: I am putting it to you that no official of the Beige Group told you during investigations that depositors funds were transferred to BCAM. What they told you was that the Bank made investments with BCAM.

A: That is exactly what they told us.

Q: I am therefore putting it to you that funds that moved from BCAM to FASL were funds placed with FASL by BCAM in the course of its business.

A: That is so and that is what I earlier indicated that the BCAM funds that were placed in the FASL account were investments from depositors.

Q: If you take Exhibit K which is the FASL account which received the placements from BCAM, you cannot find the name of one single depositor of the Beige Bank.

A: I think I answered that question a few days ago and mentioned Bidvest as one of the investors.

Q: I put it to you that when you mentioned Bidvest, I informed you that Bidvest was fully paid from the same FASL account, is that correct?

A: That is correct and Bidvest is one of the depositors and that is why they are captured in Exhibit K.

Q: It is therefore clear from Exhibit K that any depositor of funds with FASL had their funds paid to them but di not have such funds transferred to any of the related companies?

A: That cannot be correct.

Q: So from Exhibit K, did you find out any other depositor of funds whose money we can trace to the Alberry statement of account you are currently looking at?

A: As I stated, the Alberry account was not the subject of our investigations. Besides, as it was earlier established that when you place money in your account with the Bank, you do not expect to get the same money. In similar vein, I cannot point to the exact depositor or depositors whose investments were credited to the Alberry account.

Q: Even if your investigations were limited to the FASL account which is Exhibit K, can you take a look now at Exhibit K and tell the court whose customers funds was credited to the Alberry account?

A: As I stated, the exact customers, you cannot know.

Q: In your previous testimony in this court, you were able to identify a customer which is Bidvest so if now you cannot know, I am therefore putting it to you that you are not speaking the truth.

A: I am being truthful to the court. Just as I said, most of the customers who placed their investments with the bank had their investments moved to BCAM which later deposited such funds into the FASL account.

Q: From your previous testimony, you informed the court that when a person deposits money, the person’s money cannot be identified specifically with the Bank, do you still stand by that?

A: That is so but I added that there is the probability or possibility that same money could come back to the depositor.

Q: Are you aware that BCAM managed funds beyond the placements made by the Bank with BCAM?

A: That was not part of our investigations.

Q: I am putting it to you that BCAM was a Fund Manager and managed various funds including placements from the Bank with BCAM.

A: That is exactly what Thomas Esso mentioned to us when we met him as the Manager of BCAM.

Q: I am therefore putting it to you that it is incorrect to say that funds placed by BCAM with FASL were funds belonging to the Bank’s customers.

A: I disagree with you in the sense that as evidenced in Exhibit K, Bidvest was a client whose funds went into the FASL account and they had it back.

Q: I am therefore putting it to you that the fact that Bidvest was paid by FASL confirms that no customers money was further transferred to any of the related companies.

A: I disagree with you. From Exhibit K, there is no evidence that any of the related parties had their funds deposited in the FASL account except those which moved from BCAM to that account.

Q: The question I asked you was that the one single example of Bidvest that you keep referring to only confirms that the FASL account also recorded placements from other customers, Bidvest being just one example, is that correct?

A: That is correct my lady.

Q: I am putting it to you that from the FASL account you are looking at Exhibit, such customers were paid back from the same FASL account and did not have the funds transferred to the related companies?

A: I disagree with you. At the time we were investigating, that account had balance of GH¢299,748,357.32 which suggests there were funds of depositors in that account.

Q: At what point in time was this amount standing to the credit of FASL?

A: As of 3rd August, 2018.

Q: And so as at that time, you had the full benefit of transactions of the FASL account from March 2018 to August, 2018, is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: And so, if any customers funds were transferred from Exhibit K to any of the related companies, it would have reflected in Exhibit K, I am putting that to you.

A: I disagree with you because apart from Bidvest, the names of such customers or entities were not outlined when it comes to the BCAM’s placements into that account.

Q: Did your investigations reveal the placements of other customers whose funds were placed by the Bank with BCAM but which were not recorded in the statement of account of BCAM?

A: No my lady. We did not investigate that.

Q: I am finally putting it to you that so far as the charge in count One as the charge in Count one is concerned, you have not in your investigations revealed and you have not put before the court any evidence to show that the accused dishonestly appropriated the GH¢5,240,000 that was in the account of Alberry.

A: We have adduced that depositors’ funds that were credited into the BCAM’s account and placed in the FASL account were part of the monies credited into the Alberry account from the FASL account which Alberry company is a related company to the accused.

Q: In Count Two of the charge sheet, the accused person is alleged to have stolen the sum of 6 million Ghana Cedis which is the property of the Bank transferred to DYI, is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: If you look at the DYI statement of account that is before you, you would not find any transfer of funds from the Bank to DYI Limited?

A: No my lady. there is no transfer of any sort into this specific statement of account.

Q: If you take a look at the date 20th April, 2018 in the DYI Limited account, you would find a credit transaction of 3 Million Ghana Cedis.

A: That is correct and that is from the FASL control account.

Q: There are two other credit transactions dated 30th May, 2018 and June 5th ,2018 in the sum of 1.5 Million Ghana Cedis each in favour of DYI, is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: And these two credit transactions also came from the FASL account?

A: That is correct my lady.

Q: It is a total of the 3 Million Ghana Cedis and the two 1.5 Million Ghana Cedis credit transactions which formed the charge of the stealing of 6 Million Ghana Cedis in Count Two.

A: That is correct my lady.

Q: Before you these credit transactions, if you take a look at the DYI statement of account starting from the 19th of September, 2017, you would find several other credit transactions before the first transfer of 3 Million Ghana Cedis, is that correct?

A: I do not have 19th September, 2017. I have 29th September, 2017 on this account?

Q: Take a look at on the DYI statement of account and not the DYI 2?

A: That is correct.

Q: If you take a look at the whole of all the statements of accounts of all the related companies, there is not a single transaction involving the accused and from which the accused person benefited, I am putting that to you.

A: No my lady, there is no single transaction that went to the accused person in person. However, those entities whose statement of accounts we are referring to are related entities to the accused person.

END