High Court Acquits Seven in Alleged D2.59 Million GPA Fraud Case, Orders Two to Open Defence

By JarranewsTV Staff Reporter

The High Court in Banjul has acquitted and discharged seven of the nine accused persons standing trial in connection with an alleged D2.591 million fraud involving the , after ruling that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against them.

Justice S.K. Jobarteh, delivering a ruling on a no-case submission in State v. Jackile Kanteh & 8 Others, held that the evidence presented by the State against the third to ninth accused persons fell short of the legal threshold required to sustain criminal proceedings. However, the court ordered the first and second accused persons to open their defence.

The accused persons, including tellers, a branch manager, and a branch coordinator of , were jointly charged with offences relating to alleged unauthorised withdrawals from GPA’s dalasi current account between April 22 and November 5, 2022.

They faced six counts, including conspiracy to commit a felony contrary to Section 368 of the Criminal Code, making documents without authority contrary to Section 332, making false documents contrary to Section 320, and theft contrary to Section 245.

According to the prosecution, the accused persons allegedly conspired with one Buba Jobe, who remains at large, to fraudulently obtain and process unauthorised cheque books, resulting in withdrawals amounting to D2,591,000 from GPA accounts.

During the trial, the State called 14 witnesses and tendered 21 exhibits. Prosecutors alleged that the first accused, a former GPA Cash Office Manager, unlawfully signed a cheque requisition form, while the second accused completed and processed the form. Bank officials were further accused of facilitating the transactions.

In her ruling, Justice Jobarteh found that the prosecution failed to adduce evidence linking the third to ninth accused persons to any criminal intent or coordinated fraudulent activity.

On the conspiracy charge, the judge held that the evidence merely showed the accused persons performing their routine banking duties, without proof of any agreement, communication, shared benefit, or “meeting of minds” necessary to establish conspiracy.

“The essential ingredient of a meeting of minds is completely absent,” Justice Jobarteh ruled, adding that failure to detect irregularities, without evidence of criminal intent, could not amount to conspiracy.

The court further found no evidence that the third to ninth accused persons fabricated documents, altered signatures, or knowingly processed forged instruments. Justice Jobarteh stressed that the routine processing of banking transactions, absent proof of knowledge of fraud, could not constitute criminal conduct.

The judge also noted evidence indicating that some of the accused persons attempted to verify transactions through official banking channels before granting approvals, describing such conduct as consistent with compliance with banking procedures rather than participation in fraud.

Justice Jobarteh additionally criticised the prosecution for failing to produce key email correspondence relating to transaction verification, describing the omission as a significant evidential gap that weakened the State’s case.

On the theft charge, the court held that the prosecution failed to provide any financial records, bank statements, or witness testimony linking the third to ninth accused persons to the allegedly stolen funds.

Relying on Sections 238 of the Criminal Procedure Code and 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the court acquitted and discharged the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth accused persons on all counts.

The judge concluded that the prosecution’s case against them was founded largely on suspicion rather than credible evidence capable of sustaining a conviction.

However, the court found that a prima facie case had been established against the first and second accused persons.

Justice Jobarteh held that evidence before the court indicated that the first accused, a former Cash Office Manager at GPA, was directly involved in the cheque requisition process, including signing documentation without proper authorisation and participating in communications connected to the transaction chain.

With respect to the second accused, the court found that evidence suggesting she completed the requisition form and received the cheque books constituted sufficient circumstantial evidence requiring her to answer the charges in her defence.

The judge declined to elaborate further on the evidence against the two accused persons, stating that doing so could prejudice the ongoing proceedings.

The matter was subsequently adjourned for the first and second accused persons to enter their defence in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code.