Alleged N32bn Fraud: Attorney General Amends Criminal Charge In Case Involving Fidelity Bank

The Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) has amended an alleged N32 billion Fraud case against Fidelity Bank and a lawyer Victor Ukutt.

Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa adjourned the case to Monday May 21 in order for the Federal Government to serve 2nd and 4th defendants, an amended charge

The FG had filed an eight-count charge of alleged conspiracy, conversion, obtaining by false pretences, forgery, fraud, and money laundering against the defendants.

The defendants are Fidelity Bank, its Managing Director and CEO, Nneka Onyeali-Ikpe; a lawyer, Victor Ukutt; and one Whoba Ugwunna Ogo (who is said to be currently at large).

Only Mr Ukutt was present in court on Monday.

However at the resumption of proceedings on Monday, the prosecution counsel Mrs Chelsy Emezina, informed the court that she has filed an amended charge wherein the name of the Managing Director of Fidelity Bank Nneka Onyeali-Ikpe was removed from the Charge.

But Counsel to the 1st and 4th defendants Femi Falana SAN, (Ukutt and Ogo). Fidelity Bank and its CEO were represented by another Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Ayodele Akintunde.

The matter was initially fixed for hearing of the defendants preliminary objection on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and abuse of process.

But, the prosecutor said the Motions are not ripe for hearing.

In her oral arguments based on section 396(1) and (2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, she said that, in a criminal matter the defendant must first submit to the authority of the court by taking his plea before the court can hear any objections to the charge.

In the charge, the four defendants were all accused of conspiring between 2011 and 2023 to convert a sum of about N32 billion from Woobs Resources Limited’s account with Fidelity Bank.

The alleged offences are said to violate sections of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011 (as amended).

But, the defendants have stated that the matter involved a dispute over the ownership of shares in the complainant’s account, which is currently before the Court of Appeal.