The Kuwaitis was lured
into a shady deal with fraudsters from Nigerian who used Sani Abacha as bait. Three Nigerians, claiming affiliation to the late Head of State,
Sani Abacha, swindled US$1.375million (N204 million) out of two Kuwaiti
businessmen, UK court documents obtained by PREMIUM TIMES have shown.
The multimillion naira fraud, which occurred between August 2001
and March 2002, also involved the now defunct City Express Bank although the
presiding judge, Justice Treacy, largely found the bank innocent of “dishonest
assistance.”
In his ruling, Mr. Treacy noted that there was nothing to show
that the bank had prior knowledge of the impending scam.
that the bank had prior knowledge of the impending scam.
The players
In May 2001, Qumar Bello, acting on behalf of Abdulkadir Abacha,
alleged to be the brother of the late general, contacted Adnan Abou-Rahmah, a
Kuwaiti lawyer, seeking his assistance to invest US$65million in an Arab
country.
alleged to be the brother of the late general, contacted Adnan Abou-Rahmah, a
Kuwaiti lawyer, seeking his assistance to invest US$65million in an Arab
country.
Mr. Abou-Rahmah flew out to the Republic of Benin, where the
money, allegedly belonging to the Abacha family trust, was stashed; and by
August, a formal agreement had been entered by both parties.
money, allegedly belonging to the Abacha family trust, was stashed; and by
August, a formal agreement had been entered by both parties.
In the agreement, as a reward for Mr. Abou-Rahmah’s assistance
in investing the US$65million in Kuwait’s “very buoyant” real estate, 40
percent of the trust money as well as 15 percent of the income produced would
accrue to the Kuwaiti lawyer and his client, Khalid Al-Fulaij and Sons General
Trading and Contracting company.
in investing the US$65million in Kuwait’s “very buoyant” real estate, 40
percent of the trust money as well as 15 percent of the income produced would
accrue to the Kuwaiti lawyer and his client, Khalid Al-Fulaij and Sons General
Trading and Contracting company.
While in Benin, Mr. Abou-Rahmah also met with ‘bankers’,
‘ministers’ as well as a host of ‘public officials’, dissolving any prior
suspicion of foul play.
‘ministers’ as well as a host of ‘public officials’, dissolving any prior
suspicion of foul play.
The bait
After agreeing on the sharing formula with the Kuwaiti; the trio
of Mr. Bello, Mr. Abacha, and a third colleague, Aboubakar Mohammed Maiga,
claimed that a series of bureaucratic obstacles involving various payments had
to be made before the trust capital could be transferred out of the country.
of Mr. Bello, Mr. Abacha, and a third colleague, Aboubakar Mohammed Maiga,
claimed that a series of bureaucratic obstacles involving various payments had
to be made before the trust capital could be transferred out of the country.
But the fraudsters agreed to clear the payment, only soliciting
a “contribution” from Mr. Abou-Rahmah.
a “contribution” from Mr. Abou-Rahmah.
In August, 2001, the first part of Mr. Abou-Rahmah’s
“contributions” – US$100,000 in cash wired to the fraudsters – as part of a
US$450,000 they claimed had to be paid to the Ministry of Finance in Benin to
secure authorisation of the trust capital.
“contributions” – US$100,000 in cash wired to the fraudsters – as part of a
US$450,000 they claimed had to be paid to the Ministry of Finance in Benin to
secure authorisation of the trust capital.
Two months later, the Kuwaiti lawyer wired another US$450,000,
part of a fee allegedly to be paid to the Benin Drug Enforcement Agency to
obtain a drugs certificate needed for the release of the money.
part of a fee allegedly to be paid to the Benin Drug Enforcement Agency to
obtain a drugs certificate needed for the release of the money.
Again, on the 9th of January, 2002, Mr. Abou-Rahmah wired
US$400,000 to the fraudsters. Another US$225,000 was paid one month later. Both
monies, alleged to be VAT payable on the trust capital, were paid into City
Express Bank’s HSBC bank account in Poultry, London.
US$400,000 to the fraudsters. Another US$225,000 was paid one month later. Both
monies, alleged to be VAT payable on the trust capital, were paid into City
Express Bank’s HSBC bank account in Poultry, London.
The funds were to be held for Trust International, the name of
the client Mr. Abacha instructed the Kuwaiti lawyer to pay the money.
the client Mr. Abacha instructed the Kuwaiti lawyer to pay the money.
The bank subsequently transferred the naira equivalent sums of
the money to its client’s account at Apapa, Lagos.
the money to its client’s account at Apapa, Lagos.
However, the actual name of the client was Trusty International
while its principals were Yusuf Ibrahim and Nasir Saminu.
while its principals were Yusuf Ibrahim and Nasir Saminu.
The duo cleared the money as soon as it reached it the account.
The US$65million never materialised.
The fraudsters vanished.
Quest for justice
With their supposed business partners as well as their money
disappearing without trace; Mr. Abou-Rahmah and his partner headed to the High
Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, in London, accusing City Express Bank
of “dishonest assistance.”
disappearing without trace; Mr. Abou-Rahmah and his partner headed to the High
Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, in London, accusing City Express Bank
of “dishonest assistance.”
The Kuwaitis contended that the bank’s handling of the
US$625,000 which it paid to Trusty International as against Trust International
amounted to fraud against them.
US$625,000 which it paid to Trusty International as against Trust International
amounted to fraud against them.
In his ruling, the judge held that although Dare Faronbi, the
bank’s Apapa branch manager, was aware that Messrs Ibrahim and Saminu were
involved in a bureau de change business usually used to launder money for
Nigerian politicians, who constitute a large number of their clients; his
denial of not having any specific knowing that Trusty International was aiding
corrupt politicians, at the time, was accepted.
bank’s Apapa branch manager, was aware that Messrs Ibrahim and Saminu were
involved in a bureau de change business usually used to launder money for
Nigerian politicians, who constitute a large number of their clients; his
denial of not having any specific knowing that Trusty International was aiding
corrupt politicians, at the time, was accepted.
“I have come to the conclusion that at the time… Mr. Faronbi
probably suspected, in a general way that Messrs Ibrahim and Saminu might be,
in the course of their business from time to time, assisting corrupt
politicians to launder money,” said the judge.
probably suspected, in a general way that Messrs Ibrahim and Saminu might be,
in the course of their business from time to time, assisting corrupt
politicians to launder money,” said the judge.
“There was nothing to show that Mr. Faronbi had any particularly
suspicions about the transactions which were the subject of this case,” he
added.
suspicions about the transactions which were the subject of this case,” he
added.
The judge also dismissed claims from City Express Bank that Mr.
Abou-Rahmah was an accomplice in crime since he must have realized that the
supposed trust capital to be transferred to him were associated with the Abacha
family, and thus, were the proceeds of crime.
Abou-Rahmah was an accomplice in crime since he must have realized that the
supposed trust capital to be transferred to him were associated with the Abacha
family, and thus, were the proceeds of crime.
“I should say at this stage that I regard the claimed
relationship to General Abacha as yet another component of the fraud
perpetrated upon the claimants; I consider it extremely doubtful that any such
relationship existed,” the judge noted.
relationship to General Abacha as yet another component of the fraud
perpetrated upon the claimants; I consider it extremely doubtful that any such
relationship existed,” the judge noted.
Also, the judge held that even if Mr. Faronbi had noticed the
discrepancy between ‘Trust’ and ‘Trusty’, the production of documents would
reasonably have overridden any question as to the intended recipient of the
monies.
discrepancy between ‘Trust’ and ‘Trusty’, the production of documents would
reasonably have overridden any question as to the intended recipient of the
monies.
“The failure to observe the discrepancy between ‘Trust’ and
‘Trusty’ was not a wilful or reckless closing of eyes. It represented a failure
to notice; something which could not be put any higher than mere negligence,”
the judge ruled
‘Trusty’ was not a wilful or reckless closing of eyes. It represented a failure
to notice; something which could not be put any higher than mere negligence,”
the judge ruled
Source: Premium Time
