Alleged N3.645bn Money Laundering: EFCC Challenges Omatsuli, Firms’ Acquittal

Wale Igbintade

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has approached the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, seeking to overturn the acquittal of former Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) Executive Director, Engr. Touyo Omatsuli, and three others over alleged N3.645 billion money laundering scheme.

Also listed as respondents in the appeal are Don Parker Properties Limited, Francis Momoh and Building Associates Limited.

Justice Daniel Osiagor of the Federal High Court in Lagos, had discharged and acquitted the defendants on all 46 counts.

In its Notice of Appeal, the EFCC through its counsel, E.E. Iheanacho, SAN, argued that the trial court erred in law and failed to properly evaluate the evidence, including testimonies from 16 witnesses and several documentary exhibits.

The Commission maintained that the court ignored earlier decisions of the Court of Appeal which held that a prima facie case had been established, requiring the defendants to open their defence.

The anti-graft agency contended that the trial judge wrongly concluded that there was no evidence linking the respondents to the alleged offences, despite prior appellate findings affirming the strength of the prosecution’s case.

At the centre of the appeal is the EFCC’s claim that the trial court mischaracterised the nature of the funds traced to the first respondent.

It argued that the sum of N3.645 billion paid by a contractor, identified as PW4, constituted unlawful gratification to NDDC officials rather than legitimate payments.

According to the Commission, the funds were paid as “appreciation” and routed through accounts linked to the respondents before being used to acquire properties, thereby concealing their origin.

It further alleged that the transactions were structured through proxies and corporate entities, with some converted into foreign currency to obscure the source.

The EFCC also accused the respondents of engaging in cover-up actions after investigations commenced, including restructuring company ownership, relinquishing shares, and creating backdated documents to justify the transactions.

The Commission faulted the trial court for relying on isolated portions of cross-examination while ignoring the totality of the prosecution’s case.

It insisted that there were no material contradictions in the evidence of key witnesses and that their testimonies were corroborated by documentary exhibits.

On the issue of intent, the EFCC argued that the court adopted an unduly restrictive approach by demanding direct proof of knowledge. It maintained that, under the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, such knowledge can be inferred from surrounding circumstances, including unusual financial flows and the absence of legitimate business relationships.

The Commission also challenged the finding that conspiracy was not proved, arguing that the coordinated actions of the respondents were sufficient to establish a common unlawful design.

It further contended that the companies involved qualified as Designated Non-Financial Institutions and failed to comply with statutory reporting obligations.

The EFCC is urging the Court of Appeal to set aside the judgment, allow the appeal and enter a conviction against the respondents.