By Tayo Joseph Lagos
Hearing in the trial of Patrick Fernadez, who is facing a N23bn fraud charge, resumed today, February 20, 2018, before Justice Mojisola Olatoregun of the Federal High Court sitting in Ikoyi, Lagos, with a prosecution witness, Olaogun Olawale Johnson, a staff of Access Bank Plc, revealing how the accused perpetrated the alleged criminal act.
The suspect is facing trial alongside his three companies, Joseann Lobal Resources Limited, Pet Prime Impex Limited and Pet Ferns Nigeria Limited on a 56-count charge of fraud.
The accused, between January 21 and 25, 2008, allegedly presented to Intercontinental Bank Plc various managers’ cheques for various sums of money.
At the resumed sitting today, Johnson, a Compliant Officer with Access Bank Plc, told the court that the accused presented a cheque totalling N7bn( Seven Billion Naira) to Intercontinental Bank Plc, where he worked as Branch Resident Controller.
Johnson, who was led in evidence by Rotimi Jacobs, SAN, further said that out of the N7bn, the sum of N6,750,000,000bn was a cheque from Wema Bank Plc, while the balance was that out of Afri Bank Plc.
Johnson, who is the fourth prosecution witness, further told the court that the cheques were discounted and that the accused was given drafts totalling N6bn.
” The cheques were returned and the drafts were also returned.
” What he did is called cheque kiting, ” he further testified.
The PW4 also told the court that when the cheque was returned, both the Police and the EFCC were informed about the possible case of kiting and obtaining under false pretence.
” The EFCC invited me in 2017, where I made a statement.
” The EFCC requested for his statement of account and account packages, which the bank responded by forwarding same,” he added.
When the prosecution counsel sought to tender the document and the attachments, the defence counsel objected on the grounds that the covering letter was addressed to the EFCC.
” My Lord, the witness can’t tender it because it is a public document that is supposed to be certified and tendered by an appropriate authority,” he said.
He also argued that there were some computer-based documents that bear no certification.
He, therefore, urged the court to mark the document as tendered and rejected.
